| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:10:49 -0500 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 09:55 Mon 10 Oct , Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:08:43 -0500 |
| 6 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > On 10:21 Sun 09 Oct , Michał Górny wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > > We're calling it with '--patch-only' to avoid heavy changes to |
| 9 |
> > > > ebuilds. This should handle gracefully eautoreconfed packages |
| 10 |
> > > > and those not using libtool as well (in worst case, it should |
| 11 |
> > > > try to apply patches twice). |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > What kind of testing have you done? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Simple testing on a few packages of mine. If you have something |
| 16 |
> > specific in mind, please be more accurate. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It's probably better to test on other people's code, since your own |
| 19 |
> will always use eclass code in the way you imagine it being used. For |
| 20 |
> changes to popular eclasses like this, I'd go find a cross-section of |
| 21 |
> 25+ packages written by a variety of people besides yourself (or just |
| 22 |
> test all 87 in the tree). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yeah, I'm slowly testing random packages against it and haven't seen |
| 25 |
any problems yet. Would be nice, though, to be able to let tinderbox do |
| 26 |
the testing with modified eclasses. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Bonus points for those written by the most |
| 29 |
> and least experienced devs, who I'd expect to use things in more |
| 30 |
> unexpected/unlikely ways. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sunrise seems a good choice here. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives