Re: [gentoo-dev] Disturbing state of arch testing in Gentoo

[Sam James]

> On 8 Nov 2022, at 00:23, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James <sam@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen <xxc3ncoredxx@×××××.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>>>> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
>>>> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you
>>>> mgorny wrote is replacement for old bugzilla bot that was ...
>>>> closedsource and perished, though nattka now have way more features than
>>>> the old thing ever had.
>>>
>>> As a user, I think it would be really cool if there was a requirement
>>> that all infra and infra-adjacent stuff was free software.
>>>
>>> I feel like I've read that Debian already has something like this. While
>>> doing some quick searches I didn't find a full-on requirement, but all
>>> their infra bits I did find were powered by free software. The most
>>> relevant ones being buildd [1] and debci [2]. Additionally, the debci
>>> docs has inctructions on reproducing tests yourself [3] which is a nice
>>> extra IMO.
>>
>> Gentoo has https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html.
>
> I feel like something like a dev-run tinderbox is a bit out of the
> scope of that.

I intentionally didn't comment on the scope for now, but I'm glad you did.

>
> Suppose I file a bug against a package, pointing out some issue in it.
> How do you know I didn't use some proprietary static code analysis
> tool to discover that error?  Does it even really matter?  The bug
> speaks for itself.  It is like worrying about whether somebody who
> filed a bug was running Windows or another proprietary OS or browser
> on their desktop.
>

It matters if someone can't then reproduce the bug which happens
somewhat often here.