Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] finding reverse dependencies for arch testing (and other purposes)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:35:40
Message-Id: 20110921163421.GG12639@denkmatte
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] finding reverse dependencies for arch testing (and other purposes) by Markos Chandras

On 20:42 Mon 19 Sep 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/19/11 20:30, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > I uploaded my script for finding reverse dependencies here: > >;a=summary > > > > Advantages over existing solutions (browsing to websites like > > tinderbox or qa-reports): > > > > - only prints stable packages when run on a stable system (no need > > to manually filter out things) - takes a list of packages as input, > > making it more effective for a batch workflow (we're short on time, > > batching is often critical) - produces output that can be fed to > > emerge after stripping comment lines (no junk after package names); > > again this is for the batch workflow > > > > It is still reasonably fast. On my machine it completes within 30 > > seconds. > > > > Comments welcome. I'd be very happy to adapt this to your needs. My > > main goal is to share those little scripts I use with others so we > > can all become more productive (and have more time for other > > things). > > > > Paweł > > > > Maybe it is about time to gather all the arch-testing scripts we have > around, package them as a single tarball and create an ebuild for that?
For me personally I'm gathering all functionality inside tatt which aims at doing it all from one executable. Some x86 arch testers use it already, but I must admit that development has been slow. People (including me) seem to find it hard to start using somebody elses tools. There was app-portage/gatt which I tried out when I became an arch tester, but I found it insanely complicated, so I wrote tatt. I assume that at some point people will find tatt too complicated and write yaatt (yet another ... ). In principle, this is what Pawel is doing. I think an ecosystem of different arch testing tools is really useful. Let's have a page in our docs where everybody can explain his or her tool. Where in the hierarchy should the page be? How about: Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Kahle


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature