1 |
On 26/08/2005, at 1:31 PM, Grobian wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Mike Z. wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> Definitely, compilation is fine, but you need to have some sort of |
8 |
>> runtime testing as well. On the note of libraries, I would think, |
9 |
>> rather than keywording libraries that compile, we should wait |
10 |
>> until an application that requires them also needs to be |
11 |
>> keyworded. This will probably depend on which library it is, but |
12 |
>> it'd mean that we have a full deptree for each application, as |
13 |
>> well as a useful real-world test case. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> This is in general the case. We cannot keyword a library without |
17 |
> having it tested. My keyword for mp (the editor) was an example of |
18 |
> this, I needed something small to test libpcre. I think when |
19 |
> people report a library working/compiling, they use the library in |
20 |
> some application. Maybe that application is not in portage, or so |
21 |
> big that it isn't an appropriate test case, |
22 |
|
23 |
It's a good point, that's why I mentioned that libraries would need |
24 |
to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, (although applications |
25 |
outside of portage are outside our scope). |
26 |
|
27 |
> but I'd still like to keyword (unstable) libraries before a |
28 |
> separate bug for an application using the library is there, because |
29 |
> it's enormously annoying to have to keyword a whole tree of |
30 |
> dependencies to figure out the 6th level dependency does not and |
31 |
> will never compile. |
32 |
|
33 |
That wasn't exactly my point, my point was that we should hold off |
34 |
keywording libraries until they will actually be used by an |
35 |
application that is keyworded, and hence properly tested. |
36 |
|
37 |
With libraries it's important to consider what will actually be |
38 |
compiled against them (the reverse deptree) - ie, the library might |
39 |
compile, but how do we know applications will compile/run against it? |
40 |
|
41 |
Well in that case, we have to test them... and if we've tested them |
42 |
(assuming they pass, or are modified to pass), then we can keyword them. |
43 |
|
44 |
I'm only suggesting that it makes more sense to test/keyword |
45 |
libraries with applications, rather than on their own. |
46 |
|
47 |
Mike Z. [shootingstar] |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |