| 1 |
On domenica 6 novembre 2022 14:27:40 CET John Helmert III wrote: |
| 2 |
> As far as I can tell, there's ONE person relying completely on a |
| 3 |
> proprietary arch testing system. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Ago, could you comment on this? What's blocking you from open sourcing |
| 6 |
> your software? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Hi, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I already answered in the previous post: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"I still use getatoms.py to fetch 'doable' stablereqs (it is on my todo |
| 13 |
to switch to nattka). And I have a script the **simply** does emerge over the list of |
| 14 |
the packages. There is nothing obscure in it." |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm working in arch testing since 2009. In the past I relied on scripts done by someone else |
| 17 |
and every time there was an issue I got no response. |
| 18 |
At a certain point I decided to make my own script in language I know so I can edit it when |
| 19 |
is needed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Since few years we allow self stabilization from maintainer. Do we know how and with |
| 23 |
what they test? No because it is not required. |
| 24 |
The requirement for test is that the package you are testing works as expected. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy[1] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Agostino |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-------- |
| 31 |
[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy |
Archives