| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > +################################################################ |
| 6 |
> > > > #### |
| 7 |
> > > > +# |
| 8 |
> > > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated |
| 9 |
> > > > (but |
| 10 |
> > > > not |
| 11 |
> > > > +# masked yet). It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other |
| 12 |
> > > > +# packages depend on them. |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > repoman would be more useful for this |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it. I've |
| 19 |
> > lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless |
| 20 |
> > refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't |
| 21 |
> > seem |
| 22 |
> > that anyone else has. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks |
| 25 |
> > in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't |
| 26 |
> > really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead |
| 27 |
> > repoman. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> it's not about who's maintaining what here... |
| 31 |
> just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Oh, I've listed pkgcheck there because it's the only tool implementing |
| 34 |
the file at the moment. I'm happy to replace it with larger list or |
| 35 |
something more generic once there are other tools. However, I believe |
| 36 |
that saying 'pkgcheck' right now has the advantage that devs know which |
| 37 |
tool to use to see the result. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit |
| 40 |
> checks and raising everyone's attention on potential |
| 41 |
> improvements/issues; |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Nope. Per quite recent Council meeting pkgcheck is fully acceptable |
| 44 |
alternative, and to my knowledge a number of devs have switched already. |
| 45 |
Because they value their time and good package quality. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for |
| 48 |
> producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different problem |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally. In fact, |
| 51 |
it should work out of the box these days. If you have any problems, |
| 52 |
please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa- |
| 55 |
> reports like for eapis too |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I don't think there's really a point in duplicating this. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Best regards, |
| 61 |
Michał Górny |
Archives