| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:36 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 2 |
> Not every time when I receive a new ebuild submittion, I also test that |
| 3 |
> package because this is not always possible. Usually, I add the new |
| 4 |
> ebuild with ~x86 and let testing to the user who request that. It may |
| 5 |
> not be the orthodox way, but the risk of breaking something else in the |
| 6 |
> process is 0 (a new ebuild means no other ebuilds depends on it). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Add it as ~arch and p.mask it, or get more people to test it *while it |
| 9 |
is still in bugzilla* until you are pretty sure that it works, *then* |
| 10 |
add it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If an ebuild has a DEPEND on >=foo-1.0 and you add foo-1.2, then it |
| 13 |
*will* be pulled in as a dependency, so you can't possibly say that |
| 14 |
nothing depends on it and be serious. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Users don't usually come to me and say "that ebuild works for me". I |
| 17 |
> take silence as a sign that everything works. I am sure I'm not the only |
| 18 |
> one doing that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No. Everyone else is making sure the ebuild works before adding it. |
| 21 |
The truth is that you've just been lucky, so far. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I ask arches to mark a new ebuild as stable because a know bug have been |
| 24 |
> solved or because the old stable version breaks something else. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Great. Don't start a hissy fit on -dev when they don't mark it stable |
| 27 |
because they can't test it. Especially when you haven't made a good |
| 28 |
effort to contact them to resolve the problem. Airing your dirty |
| 29 |
laundry out in public just makes you look white trash... ;] This isn't |
| 30 |
Jerry Springer. We don't need to know who your baby's daddy is. A |
| 31 |
simple email to the mips team could have kept all of this from even |
| 32 |
being an issue. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 36 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 37 |
Games - Developer |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives