| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:06:19 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sunday 16 September 2012 11:01:00 Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > also, you are missing some bug # for the 'broken deps' part. |
| 6 |
> > packages that have gained broken deps when the profile was marked |
| 7 |
> > 'dev', or that you committed with your profile.desc locally |
| 8 |
> > modified, do not count and are your fault actually... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> wrong. if i'm version bumping a package and i see broken amd64-fbsd |
| 11 |
> deps, that is not my problem. sounds like i'll simply de-keyword it |
| 12 |
> in the future and let someone else pick up the pieces. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
why do you want to treat amd64-fbsd different than other arches ? |
| 15 |
just to make the work of those that want to maintain that arch a pain ? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
you know, standard procedure is to drop keywords and file a bug when a |
| 18 |
new dep comes in a new version. deps that are _already_ broken should |
| 19 |
not happen because, heh, the profile is marked stable... in case this |
| 20 |
happens there's nothing sane to do, better use repoman --force and file |
| 21 |
an urgent bug to the arch team. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> do a repoman on the tree. there are multiple packages coming back |
| 24 |
> right now with broken amd64-fbsd deps. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
if people do not file bugs and think it's fine to commit packages with |
| 27 |
broken deps, or silently dekeyword just because they can like you |
| 28 |
suggested in the first paragraph, this will not change anytime soon. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
and no thanks, i wont be doing repoman checks on the tree, i had been |
| 31 |
doing this for x86-fbsd, spending hours fixing the mess i could, and had |
| 32 |
to re-do it every couple of months because every other dev was |
| 33 |
committing packages with broken deps. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
now, would you please file bugs when you see such broken packages and |
| 36 |
let the keywording level be sanitized ? thanks |
Archives