Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues!
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:49:18
Message-Id: 1471564141.29416.16.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues! by Alexis Ballier
1 Ühel kenal päeval, N, 18.08.2016 kell 23:56, kirjutas Alexis Ballier:
2 > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:20:41 -0700
3 > Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > On 08/18/2016 06:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
6 > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400
7 > > > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
8 > > >   
9 > > > > If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they
10 > > > > build with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will
11 > > > > actually result in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as
12 > > > > well.  
13 > > >
14 > > >
15 > > > That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is
16 > > > that QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego
17 > > > left. Maybe QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and
18 > > > avoid asking people to randomly test random packages ?
19 > > >   
20 > > I dunno, if testing packages that one maintains is as simple as
21 > > reconfiguring a package, testing, and switching back then I don't
22 > > think it's unreasonable to ask us to test our own packages. We're
23 > > supposed to do that already, and for packages whose dependencies
24 > > aren't 100% hashed out, it can help us figure out what the real
25 > > deps
26 > > are.
27 >
28 >
29 > test against... all linkers, all compilers, all libcs, all kernels,
30 > all
31 > userlannds, all useflags, ... ? :)
32 >
33 >
34 > by all means, please do it, but there are things machines are better
35 > at, like ensuring all packages have been tested against gold linker
36 > and
37 > every failure has been reported
38
39 The tl;dr did say to switch to ld.gold, but the main point was to
40 actually fix the bugs reported against your packages about it by other
41 developers, users and any future tinderbox runs, instead of ignoring
42 them as something that isn't supposed to matter and very low priority.
43 I think that should be sufficient, and we don't need to all rush to
44 switching to it, as long as we take care of the bugs about it when
45 others notice and file a bug.
46 Though it gives some good benefits when you are able to use it, afaik,
47 so hey, why not use it when you can :)
48
49
50 Mart