1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Micha³ Górny wrote: |
5 |
> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
6 |
> napisa³(a): |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
11 |
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs |
12 |
>>> <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman |
15 |
>>>> wrote: |
16 |
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell |
17 |
>>>>> <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
18 |
>>>>>> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be |
19 |
>>>>>> short-term, then it can as well just land in ~arch. |
20 |
>>>>> |
21 |
>>>>> A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in |
22 |
>>>>> ~arch. Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect |
23 |
>>>>> of the package, or any aspect of the package? Do we want |
24 |
>>>>> it to break completely for ~arch? In that event, nobody |
25 |
>>>>> will run ~arch for that package, and then it still isn't |
26 |
>>>>> getting tested. |
27 |
>>>> |
28 |
>>>> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something |
29 |
>>>> into ~arch without testing it, but ~arch users are running |
30 |
>>>> ~arch with the understanding that their systems will break |
31 |
>>>> from time to time and they are expected to be able to deal |
32 |
>>>> with it when/if it happens. ~arch is not a second stable |
33 |
>>>> branch. |
34 |
>>> |
35 |
>>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN |
36 |
>>> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and |
37 |
>>> that is it. Or maybe they tested it in a very limited set of |
38 |
>>> circumstances but know that other untested circumstances are |
39 |
>>> important to the users and they have definite plans to get them |
40 |
>>> tested. |
41 |
>>> |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> Here's a great example of this -- dev-libs/nss-3.16-r1 is |
45 |
>> p.masked by me for testing, because when I converted it to |
46 |
>> multilib i needed to change the way it does some internal ABI |
47 |
>> determination tests, and although I know it does work fine on |
48 |
>> multilib-amd64 and (non-multilib) x86, I am not confident without |
49 |
>> more testing that it will work for cross-compiles or other |
50 |
>> non-multilib arches. As such, it -is- in the tree, but I've |
51 |
>> masked it until I can test it myself in these circumstances or |
52 |
>> find someone else that can do it for me. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether |
55 |
> it works :P. |
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and |
59 |
it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be |
60 |
quite a lot at this point. :D |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
64 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
65 |
|
66 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlOxhOIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD4NwD/Spcjj7VPGNIz+FCVTkSUDmKZ |
67 |
ghVqFhuiemJO7+G62wgA/jc7bpyPsu8S7wbbNs3UYGqE//MyVYNWHDmOoXDZ3Qsk |
68 |
=FEfS |
69 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |