В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 07:53 +0200, Luca Barbato пишет:
> Getting the build time from 30minutes to an hour or more?
Actually I don't understand this concern. If you bother about time
tests take don't build package from sources - use binary packages. If
you build program by yourself - run testsuite t
On 11-06-2008 20:24:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 David Leverton wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > > > wor
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 David Leverton wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
> >
> > For tho
On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
>
> For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
http://tin
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through and
install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since that's
big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11- categories are nice
and pretty).
Nice game, still you aren't giving substance
> If, as a user or an arch person, I get a src_test failure right now, I
> don't know whether this means "eek! Something's gone wrong, and I
> really need to fix this" or "oh, whoever maintains this package
> doesn't care". But with EAPI 2, I'll be able to know that a src_test
> failure really doe
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:34:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through
> > and install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since
> > that's big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11-
> > categories ar
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Des
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:55 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it.
It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an
im
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 14:20:55 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
> > And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that
> > hasn't been caught because of missing tests.
>
> That may or may not exist
Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifica
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:55 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
> >> field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it.
> > It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an
> > implementation of it a
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
He doesn't point any issue in particular.
And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that
hasn't been caught because of missing tests.
That may or may not exist
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:08:20 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ya know ciaran, I've just got to point out that you spend quite a
> large amount of time talking about pkgcore. Literaly- you talk about
> it more then I do.
Unfortunately, since you don't care about implementing EAPI
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:05:47 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
>
> That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
It's more than enough to write unit tests to ensure that all things
change
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how
> > > to reproduce a problem?
> >
> > because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup th
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
Checking every part that's changed before releasing an EAPI 1 package
manager is the least any responsible person would do. That they would
release a versi
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup t
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how
> > to reproduce a problem?
>
> because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
> field to cover but you also do not know the bounds o
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick un
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick un
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch strai
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
It's not as simple as that. A package may fail tests because compiler
bugs, build environment misconfiguration, problems in a library which
is being used, a setup problem or, of course, a bug in the package
which shows up in rare cases and haven't been spotted by upstream
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch straight away.
No, you are
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:23:59AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> Also, I think you seem to be suggesting that gentoo is so well tested
> that once something's marked stable, there's no point in testing it.
A very good point. Just last week the *stable* perl cairo bindings were
broken by a x11-libs
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:55:45 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
> >>> you'd've found at least one major bug
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgco
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
>> building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry on".
>
> Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken, using
On 00:11 Wed 11 Jun , Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> I would like the portage devs to comment upon which of the following features
> they think could easily be implemented before portage 2.2 goes stable.
These ones meet the criteria of "I know people are working around them
because they don't
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:18, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
>> the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
>> same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
>
>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:18:07 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden
> > by the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless
> > in the same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Test failures aren't meaningless right now. Applications with good test
suites got
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:14:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
> >>> It's fair
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
on Gentoo.
"if your code sucks isn't o
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
> > It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
> > on Gentoo.
>
> "if your code sucks isn't our fault.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:55:16 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But more importantly, it still means that people *know* that a
> > failing src_test is to be investigated. Currently they instead have
> > to guess whether it's a lazy developer issue or a genuine bug being
> > shown.
>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:50:47 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that
> > generates broken code that would force you to reinstall a working
> > compiler by hand when the package manager gets h0rked.
>
> You (upstream) are suppos
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers. It's
fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly on
Gentoo.
"if your code sucks isn't our fault." - gcc upstream
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://de
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sure it will. They won't be able to install their package without
either passing src_test or restricting it.
Developers *do* try to install things before committing, right?
No, they also write the ebuilds using cat /dev/urandom through a perl
regexp.
But more importa
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
on".
Their rationale behind that is that their code is severe
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
> > you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
>
> http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/ticket/197
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:01:30 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
> > Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is
> >> and devs were supposed to run them...
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:23 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At this point, we should really only discuss features that
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:58:44 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Oh, so Gentoo has decided that basic QA is another 'poor programming
> > practice' now?
>
> Having a good testsuite is part of the QA, having it not failing is
> part of the QA, running it for s
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is and
devs were supposed to run them...
Supposedly. But in practice this isn't true, because far too many
developers just don't c
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
> > building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
> > on".
>
> Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh, so Gentoo has decided that basic QA is another 'poor programming
practice' now?
Having a good testsuite is part of the QA, having it not failing is part
of the QA, running it for supposedly tested code (thus having those test
passed already) every time isn't.
Peop
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:23 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3
> > >
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is and
> devs were supposed to run them...
Supposedly. But in practice this isn't true, because far too many
developers just don't care.
The whole mess st
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:39:53 +0200
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
So how are we supposed to handle packages where upstream *require*
that anyone building from source runs 'make check'?
If it's required to get the final binaries, then it
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:48:06 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:24:18 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> People will (and should) have -test in FEATURES anyway, good
> >> self-test suites usually take more than twice
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
managers have implemented.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two ha
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - Enable FEATURES=test by default (bug #184812)
> >
> > Only if >99% of the stable and ~arch tree and all potential "system"
> > packages build with it (IOW: no)
>
> Err.. Maybe this could have been phrased bet
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:24:18 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People will (and should) have -test in FEATURES anyway, good
self-test suites usually take more than twice the time to build and
run, may have additional dependencies that could take lots of time.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:39:53 +0200
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > So how are we supposed to handle packages where upstream *require*
> > that anyone building from source runs 'make check'?
>
> If it's required to get the final binaries, then it should be in
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
So how are we supposed to handle packages where upstream *require* that
anyone building from source runs 'make check'?
If it's required to get the final binaries, then it should be in
src_compile.
I don't know any package that does require such a thing, but IMHO it
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:24:18 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People will (and should) have -test in FEATURES anyway, good
> self-test suites usually take more than twice the time to build and
> run, may have additional dependencies that could take lots of time.
So how are we suppos
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
- Enable FEATURES=test by default (bug #184812)
Only if >99% of the stable and ~arch tree and all potential "system"
packages build with it (IOW: no)
Err.. Maybe this could have been phrased better but then I did expect you
would look at the bug before commenting.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:26:55PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has
> USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be
> nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be
> trivial f
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:42:34AM +0200, Bo ??rsted Andresen wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008 01:03:47 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Things I believe should be trivial to implement:
> > > - Custom output names in SRC_URI, also called arrows (bug #177863)
> >
> > This I'd definitely delay as it proba
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Things I believe should be trivial to implement:
> > > - Custom output names in SRC_URI, also called arrows (bug #177863)
> >
> > This I'd definitely delay as it probably affects a number of things.
>
> Such as
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> > managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have i
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 01:03:47 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I would like the portage devs to comment upon which of the following
> > features they think could easily be implemented before portage 2.2
> > goes stable. There's still some time since it hasn't left
> > package.mask yet, so I'd rather th
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:32 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:26:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now
> > has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the
> > horizon. It'd be nic
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:26:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has
> USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be
> nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be
> trivial for the Palud
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative
improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's di
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Fernando J. Pereda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
>> managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure this intersection isn't empty :/
How about
On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative
improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of
On 10 Jun 2008, at 19:06, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3
package
managers have implemented.
I'm not sure t
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> > managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> managers have implemented.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented EAPI 1 so far.
--
Richard Brown
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of existing ideas -- https://bugs.gentoo.org/1743
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative improvement to
> EAPI 1.
>
> Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of existing ideas -- https://bugs.gentoo.org/174380 -- a
tracker for EAPI feat
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now
has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon.
It'd be nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know
it'll be trivial for the Paludis and pkgcore guys to make this work
Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has
USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be
nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be
trivial for the Paludis and pkgcore guys to make this work since they
already su
75 matches
Mail list logo
