| 1 |
On 06/12/2013 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'd like to raise another issue I've met again recently. Shortly put, |
| 5 |
> some of our projects are relying too much on their overlays. The net |
| 6 |
> result is that some of their packages in the tree are not well-tested, |
| 7 |
> semi-broken and users end up being hurt by that. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The major project where this can be seen is science. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
[...] |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sorry for being very late on this thread, but for science I would like |
| 14 |
to mention that many scientific packages have severe QA problems (from a |
| 15 |
Gentoo standpoint). Upstream are usually scientists that often have no |
| 16 |
idea about how to write a build system. It is very hard to convince |
| 17 |
upstreams to implement a user selectable ar (e.g. bug 474784) or ranlib |
| 18 |
(e.g. bug 474788), etc. Some of these very specialized packages have |
| 19 |
literally 5 users and none of them will depend on being able to use an |
| 20 |
alternative 'ar'. However, QA enforces that devs come up with solutions |
| 21 |
to QA problems (at least before stabilization). I often think that it |
| 22 |
is not worth the effort to fix these kind of things. Now you could |
| 23 |
argue that with more manpower on the science team we could fix those, |
| 24 |
but I still think it is a waste. If there were more people on the |
| 25 |
science team, I would not want them to fix those trivialities. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Let me say this clearly: I'm not against QA and I think that it should |
| 28 |
be enforced in the main tree. My conclusion is that some software |
| 29 |
naturally belongs in overlays. Making it main tree fit is just not |
| 30 |
worth the effort. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers, |
| 33 |
Thomas |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Thomas Kahle |
Archives