| 1 |
13.09.14 19:31, Peter Stuge написав(ла): |
| 2 |
> Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Emerging live ebuild usually is quite a risky thing, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I don't know. It depends on the culture of the particular repository, |
| 6 |
> and while it is true that many open source repos are utter crap I'm |
| 7 |
> not sure if that is the common case? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I like to believe that developers actually think before they commit, |
| 10 |
> but I do admit to also ending up disappointed. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> One way to change that is IMO to pressure upstream not to put crap in |
| 13 |
> their repo in the first place. That is only detected by people using |
| 14 |
> the upstream repo code, and filing bugs upstream in case of crap. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sure, that's more effort for the community. But the end result is |
| 17 |
> less crappy software. Do you want to help with that? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The question is not about crap in the upstream, but about changed dependencies, behavior, whatever else. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
E.g. we in downstream have some patches, when upstream changes related code (e.g. applying our patches), ebuild fails to build. Everything in live ebuild can change, so it will fail. It can be not crap, but some improvements, but it does not matter for the possibility of building of a given ebuild. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Jauhien |
Archives