| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:08 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 2:10:27 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Hi, everyone. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being |
| 7 |
>> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects |
| 8 |
>> that I've forgotten who was working on most of them. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Did any of the tinderboxes test all the various USE flag combinations or just |
| 11 |
> the defaults? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is generally considered infeasible: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/06/a-tinderbox-is-not-enough-reprise/ |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think continuous integration with tinderboxing is a really solid |
| 19 |
idea. However, I'm not under any illusions that it will involve |
| 20 |
testing every package with every possible set of USE flags. IMO |
| 21 |
testing with the defaults of a few common profiles is probably |
| 22 |
sufficient, and mgorny's CI approach of just doing repoman checks is |
| 23 |
already a value add. I can't remember the last time I ran into a |
| 24 |
silly lack-of-repoman issue because they don't exist in the tree I |
| 25 |
sync from, but it is obvious that many users still run into them |
| 26 |
because this is not present in the official rsync mirrors (at least |
| 27 |
the manifest issues have been sorted out). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives