1 |
Dnia 2014-12-08, o godz. 07:27:51 |
2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 12/07/14 08:18, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> >>> I will also be happy to work on replacing |
6 |
> >>> the new versions of original sys-devel/gcc completely. With QA process |
7 |
> >>> against toolchain.eclass if necessary. |
8 |
> >>> |
9 |
> >> Let's get the list of QA issues so I at least can work towards a |
10 |
> >> toolchain-r1.eclass if you're not interested in going that way. Also, I |
11 |
> >> take the QA issues seriously, but threatening a QA intervention against |
12 |
> >> toolchain and then acting by forking is heavy handed. QA actions |
13 |
> >> against the current codebase is understandable. |
14 |
> >> |
15 |
> >> So to sum, I'd like to see the QA issues (and others) address in the |
16 |
> >> current approache and toolchain.eclass. Since we can make mistakes and |
17 |
> >> since toolchain is fragile, I suggest a toolchain-r1.eclass where we can |
18 |
> >> test (just change the inheritance in gcc ebuilds for testing) and |
19 |
> >> finally, when we're happy, do the switcheroo. |
20 |
> > First QA issue: toolchain.eclass is intrusive and makes ebuilds hard to |
21 |
> > understand and track. If you can remove it and make gcc into proper |
22 |
> > ebuilds that can get revision-level changes, we can discuss. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Hey! why don't I join QA so I can also "fix" eclasses that I find |
26 |
> "intrusive". Let's not make QA the final refuge of those who want to |
27 |
> push through their preferences. |
28 |
|
29 |
Yes, that's exactly what occurred to me! Then I joined QA. |
30 |
|
31 |
But seriously saying, I didn't mean forcing anything on anyone myself. |
32 |
I meant starting proper QA process which could eventually hopefully |
33 |
result in QA prohibiting the use of current eclass in future ebuilds, |
34 |
and or referring to the Council about switching the default gcc |
35 |
provider. Of course, that's only the worst scenario. |
36 |
|
37 |
> To proceed forward, you have bugs open against toolchain.eclass. The |
38 |
> practice is to submit the patches to this list for review. If after |
39 |
> awards you have community support, commit despite the maintainer's |
40 |
> objections. Having obtained community support, you will have much more |
41 |
> legitimacy against reverts. I can't speak for the whole council, but I |
42 |
> would support you under such circumstances. I cannot support a position |
43 |
> where QA simply asserts itself. When/if an appeal percolates up to the |
44 |
> council, I will side with the maintainer under the argument that the |
45 |
> commit to the eclass was not sufficiently reviewed. |
46 |
|
47 |
As I already said, the main issue simply can't be fixed this way. It's |
48 |
not that much *bugs in code in toolchain.eclass* but *what's in |
49 |
toolchain.eclass*. If we think of eclasses as libraries, then your |
50 |
library provides main() function. With conditionals for 14 consecutive |
51 |
releases of your program. And you already told people to link random |
52 |
stuff to it, and rely on every internal API detail. |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Best regards, |
56 |
Michał Górny |