Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
> Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? >> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper >> FEATURES, and an up to date system? > > Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch > devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the > number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? > > Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug > is annoying and should be abolished. Even back before it became the "in" thing, I was posting emerge --info as attachments, because it simply fit the bill -- bugzy /says/ to put long stuff as attachments. I never did quite understand why all that admittedly often useful high-volume spew was tolerated in the bug comments themselves. I like the idea above, tho. For ATs especially, having some place where emerge --info could be posted just once, with a link to it instead of the duplicated inline /or/ attachment, makes even more sense. Presumably, where it's posted could have dated versions, too, allowing for updated flags without invalidating the info pointed to for older links. If variation off the norm was needed or used for an individual package, that could be noted in the comments along with the link to the standard info. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
