| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 19:04 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > +############################################################ |
| 7 |
> > > > > #### |
| 8 |
> > > > > #### |
| 9 |
> > > > > +# |
| 10 |
> > > > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered |
| 11 |
> > > > > deprecated |
| 12 |
> > > > > (but |
| 13 |
> > > > > not |
| 14 |
> > > > > +# masked yet). It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever |
| 15 |
> > > > > other |
| 16 |
> > > > > +# packages depend on them. |
| 17 |
> > > > > |
| 18 |
> > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > repoman would be more useful for this |
| 20 |
> > > > |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining |
| 23 |
> > > it. I've |
| 24 |
> > > lost interest in contributing to the project after the last |
| 25 |
> > > pointless |
| 26 |
> > > refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't |
| 27 |
> > > seem |
| 28 |
> > > that anyone else has. |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks |
| 31 |
> > > in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I |
| 32 |
> > > don't |
| 33 |
> > > really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead |
| 34 |
> > > repoman. |
| 35 |
> > > |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > it's not about who's maintaining what here... |
| 38 |
> > just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Oh, I've listed pkgcheck there because it's the only tool |
| 41 |
> implementing |
| 42 |
> the file at the moment. I'm happy to replace it with larger list or |
| 43 |
> something more generic once there are other tools. However, I |
| 44 |
> believe |
| 45 |
> that saying 'pkgcheck' right now has the advantage that devs know |
| 46 |
> which |
| 47 |
> tool to use to see the result. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
IMHO maintaining such a list is better suited for devmanual or wiki; |
| 50 |
just like skel.ebuild could be improved by removing portage references |
| 51 |
and refer to PMS |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for |
| 55 |
> > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different |
| 56 |
> > problem |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally. In |
| 59 |
> fact, |
| 60 |
> it should work out of the box these days. If you have any problems, |
| 61 |
> please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but that's |
| 64 |
always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the |
| 65 |
equivalent of repoman commit |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> > i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa- |
| 69 |
> > reports like for eapis too |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> I don't think there's really a point in duplicating this. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
For now certainly not. Once someone wants to wipe a deprecated package |
| 74 |
this could come in handy instead of searching a huge html page, but |
| 75 |
sure this could be fixed the other way by having this in the per-check |
| 76 |
reports like what is on the left side of the current CI reports |
Archives