| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Thu Mar 23 2006, 09:41:25AM EST] |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 10:09 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Reduced responsibility for package QA (I expect "we don't care about |
| 4 |
> > overlays" to become a standard response on bugs.g.o) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You will *definitely* get this from developers that won't be using the |
| 7 |
> overlays. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Let's just say you decide to use a toolchain overlay and it exposes some |
| 10 |
> problem in random app foo because you're using gcc 5.1.99 and we only |
| 11 |
> have 4.0 in the tree. You file a bug against package foo without a |
| 12 |
> patch. I'm the maintainer. You've now made me spend my time supporting |
| 13 |
> something that isn't even in the tree, and could be an artifact of the |
| 14 |
> overlay itself and something that will *never* end up in the tree. Why |
| 15 |
> should I do this? What we have done here is actually *reduced* the |
| 16 |
> amount of productive work that I can do by forcing me to deal with these |
| 17 |
> overlays, even if I choose not to participate. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Some of this could be mitigated with some additional or modified |
| 20 |
tools. For example, emerge --info could be augmented to take |
| 21 |
a package argument and list the installed dependency tree for that |
| 22 |
package. The list could also include *where* the package and deps |
| 23 |
came from, PORTDIR or an overlay. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The result would be required information in a bug report, similar to |
| 26 |
the existing emerge --info requirement. So if I were submitting |
| 27 |
a report about keychain, I would be required to include the result of |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
emerge --info keychain |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It becomes a lot easier for devs to determine that a problem might be |
| 32 |
due to an overlay, then take whatever action they prefer based on that |
| 33 |
information. For some devs, the fact that gcc-5.1.99 breaks their |
| 34 |
package might be a welcome early warning. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Another possible enhancement would be to include a checkbox in the bug |
| 37 |
report to indicate whether overlays are in use. Hopefully checked by |
| 38 |
the reporter, but alternatively auto-detected by emerge --info in |
| 39 |
comment #1, or checked by our ever-vigilant wranglers. This would |
| 40 |
make winnowing of overlay-caused bugs easier. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Just some thoughts... |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Aron |
Archives