1 |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:47:39PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
4 |
> > > > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc |
5 |
> > > > yourself on the bug. |
6 |
> > > > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the dupes |
7 |
> > > > too). |
8 |
> > > > - That way you'll be able to quickly fix (apparently, I didn't check) obvious |
9 |
> > > > mistakes [1]. |
10 |
> > > > - You'll have to do a rev. bump for *FLAGS respect, please also check if you |
11 |
> > > > can avoid it by doing a version bump instead. |
12 |
> > > Well not always. If something is on ~testing then I don't think I should |
13 |
> > > "spam" the tree with revbumps. Stable users are my first priority so |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > Stable may be more critical, but we support ~testing as well. How do you |
16 |
> > expect your changes to be tested before landing on stable if you don't |
17 |
> > revbump the packages, allowing them to reach our users? |
18 |
> I expect arch testers to do a pretty good testing before they mark them |
19 |
> stable. Seems like I am the only one who fixes such issues without revbump. |
20 |
> Strange, cvs log must be lying... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Now lets see |
23 |
> |
24 |
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html |
25 |
> |
26 |
> "Ebuilds should have their -rX incremented whenever a change is made which will |
27 |
> make a **substantial** difference to what gets installed by the package — by |
28 |
> substantial, we generally mean "something for which many users would want to |
29 |
> upgrade". This is usually for bugfixes." |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Seems like it is up to maintainer's discretion to decide what it is |
32 |
> substantial change and what it is not. Many users wont be directly affected from my changes. It is not like not |
33 |
> respect CXX, CXXFLAGS after all. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> "Simple compile fixes do not warrant a revision bump; this is because they do |
36 |
> not affect the installed package for users who already managed to compile it. |
37 |
> Small documentation fixes are also usually not grounds for a new revision." |
38 |
> |
39 |
> So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect the |
40 |
> LDFLAGS. Why, since until recently, nobody gave a crap about this kind of QA |
41 |
> issues? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Please provide a patch for devmanual to make it more clear. If it is |
45 |
> already clear maybe I am that stupid after all. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> In any case, I will keep doing what I do because you didn't convince me so far |
48 |
> that my changes need a revbump. If arch testers fail to do proper testing |
49 |
> thats really *REALLY* not my fault. Testing is testing and I can't do a |
50 |
> revbump for every little piece of shit I fix everytime. |
51 |
|
52 |
Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes. |
53 |
Will users benefit from your change if you don't revbump? No. |
54 |
|
55 |
I think that chain of logic is enough to warrant a revbump and it is |
56 |
covered by the devmanual since the change affects the installed package. |
57 |
|
58 |
It's merely a cp, why are you making such a fuss about it? You're doing |
59 |
a good job already, we're just pointing out ways to make it even better |
60 |
|
61 |
:) |
62 |
|
63 |
BTW, archs do the final testing, but much testing is done by the users |
64 |
themselves, who report the bugs that get fixed before the packages get a |
65 |
STABLEREQ bug ;) |
66 |
|
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > Please, don't skip revbumps to avoid "tree spamming", thats why we have |
69 |
> > revbumps in the first place ;) |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > > unless something is on stable branch, I fix it as it is. I don't want to |
72 |
> > > version bump anything because I don't want to mess with anyones |
73 |
> > > packages. I only do QA fixing. If you have problem touching your |
74 |
> > > packages just say it |
75 |
> > > > |
76 |
> > > > A. |
77 |
> > > > |
78 |
> > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332523 |
79 |
> > > |
80 |
> > > -- |
81 |
> > > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
82 |
> > > Gentoo Linux Developer |
83 |
> > > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
84 |
> > |
85 |
> > -- |
86 |
> > Alex Alexander -=- wired |
87 |
> > Gentoo Linux Developer -=- Council / Qt / KDE / more |
88 |
> > www.linuxized.com |
89 |
> |
90 |
> |
91 |
> |
92 |
> -- |
93 |
> Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
94 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
95 |
> Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
96 |
> Key ID: 441AC410 |
97 |
> Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 |
|
101 |
-- |
102 |
Alex Alexander -=- wired |
103 |
Gentoo Linux Developer -=- Council / Qt / KDE / more |
104 |
www.linuxized.com |