Hi!
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > I appericiate the work done by Tobias utmost too but I have to agree
> > this is not something I want to see running automatically, or even
> > from within ebuilds.
>
> +1
>
> In Tobias's list, I count some 80 packages that need fixing. That's
> way too few to merit a general solution. Also this number will
> decrease when files are fixed upstream.
I see two problems with this approach:
- What do we do with unresponsive-yet-not-dead upstreams?
- What about future packages that ship broken files? I mean not
just existing packages that keep issuing broken PNGs but also
future packages that we just didn't cover now?
The former has two and a half solutions:
- Wait until itmagically fixes itself or upstream comes around.
This is only 1/2 a solution, IMO.
- Add a separate tarball or the like that the Gentoo maintainer
generates from the broken PNGs. Use this tarball to overwrite
the broken results of equivalent_of("make install").
- Have a convenience function that can be used for known-bad
packages to fix broken IDATs. Basically calling my script or
the binary Samuli mentioned.
The second problem, however, is trickier. We can rely on people
noticing the error messages/broken packages and hope they file
bugs. The other option is to have a QA-like check for it, again
using the simplest possible binary to do so.
Regards,
Tobias
