From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OoO4g-0001J1-2M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:04:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD0E1E0B76 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35080E0837 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:59:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marsupilami.localnet (84-238-115-127.u.parknet.dk [84.238.115.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB55C1B404E for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:59:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Thilo Bangert Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] QA confusion: Upstream qa issues -> failing to install Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:57:57 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35.1; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; ) References: <201008251342.14948.bangert@gentoo.org> <1282751707.30896.16.camel@yamato.local> <201008251459.10970.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201008251459.10970.vapier@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2509196.enh26JGaCr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008252358.00249.bangert@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a46c1a93-bb85-4803-b70b-ce9862b444da X-Archives-Hash: fc6ea6b3dfdb6ece7e99d9f659b4745a --nextPart2509196.enh26JGaCr Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike Frysinger said: > On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:55:07 Diego Elio Petten=F2 wrote: > > What this bug is about is rather the kind of errors that I've > > commented on in [1], [2] and [3] which is that they _may_ be related > > to macros or functions that are not declared/defined by the current > > set of library dependencies, and would then lead to unresolved > > undefined symbols, and thus, to runtime failure. >=20 > or: > - the return value is larger than an "int", and thus possibly > truncated - the func requires 3 args, but user passes some other > number, and compiler cannot flag it > - the user passes args in the incorrect order and the compiler cant > check it -mike this is all very helpful info about the specific problem. we should=20 probably collect this kind of information in a (wiki) page somewhere and=20 point maintainers to it directly in the warning. this would also help maintainers, when pushing patches upstream. overall, i believe, that making the maintainers job easy, by providing him= =20 ample guidance and knowledge on how to fix specific issues will make it=20 much more likely for him to fix the issue. this works for me anyway. --nextPart2509196.enh26JGaCr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkx1kegACgkQxRElEoA5AndaVwCeK0Ab3LULq4tb2l2RpW8p1bcv Xu0Ani1Iwzef5xdhcptxjyevulwGlfQW =04pV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2509196.enh26JGaCr--