| 1 |
On 9 August 2014 04:58, Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Maintainers have no feedback from their ebuilds, they all do their best |
| 4 |
> but there are no tools |
| 5 |
> to formalize their work. No compass. They have no access to user |
| 6 |
> space where the packages are installed, unaware how users are using their |
| 7 |
> ebuilds. It's the design |
| 8 |
> failure that hunts Gentoo from the start - no global intellectual bug |
| 9 |
> tracking system. Doing not mistakes |
| 10 |
> - not possible, the automated tracking sub-systems should be there but... |
| 11 |
> we are where we are. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Some of that is doable, ie: we could have installation metrics systems like |
| 15 |
CPAN has a testers network with a matrix showing where a given thing is |
| 16 |
failing : http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=CPAN-Meta-Requirements%202.126 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But its a lot of work investment to support. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And beyond "it installs" and "its tests pass", its piratically infeasible |
| 21 |
to track software failing beyond there. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And some of the reasons we have dependency declarations are to avoid |
| 24 |
problems that will ONLY be seen at runtime and WONT be seen during |
| 25 |
installation or testing. ( Usually because the problem was found before |
| 26 |
there were tests for it ) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For that, only manual feedback systems, such as our present bugzilla, are |
| 29 |
adequate. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Kent |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives