On 08/19/2016 03:49 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:21:16 +0200
Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400
Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they build
with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will actually result
in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as well.
That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is that
QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego left. Maybe
QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and avoid asking people
to randomly test random packages ?
Yes, tinderboxing makes a lot of sense if the bugs are afterwards
ignored by package maintainers. Or in the best case, the maintainer
tells reporter (Toralf) to file the bug upstream.
TBH, these are really two different problems.
1. I think raising awareness of underlinking is good.
2. I think encouraging developers to test their own packages with the
gold linker is good, because it helps accomplish #1, and increases
their awareness in general.
3. I think that having a tinderbox systematically testing using the
gold linker is also good.
4. I think that hitting devs with a cluebat when they ignore valid
bugs is good.
The flip side of this is that we're not necessarily better off if
maintainers just abandon packages because they have terrible build
systems. At some point you need to work with them. However, if
they're not willing to at least stick in a slot operator dependency
when asked to, then sure we should have a talk with them. (A slot op
dep will of course help by triggering rebuilds, but it doesn't
actually directly fix the underlinking issue, which would require
fixing the build system.)
I think the big thing is acknowledging that packages that are missing
dependencies or which are underlinked are defective. Sure, it would
be nice if somebody else came along and helped find our mistakes.
However, that in itself doesn't excuse us from having made them in the
first place. And it certainly doesn't excuse giving people a hard
time when they politely point them out.
+1
Perhaps much of the mechanics and ordinary part of these aforementioned
task, would make for fertile ground of skills diversification for the
'proxy-maintainers' ? Understanding and routine usage of a full suite of
tools available under gentoo, could easily be missed during the proxy
period. In fact, putting the tinderbox out there as part of the proxy
training and perhaps available to a portion of the wider gentoo-user
base, might also be a fertile area for technical growth or the gentoo
community?
Access to there and other dev tools might be a powerful incentive, if
packaged up attactively, for the gentoo user community to participate
more in the less risky parts of gentoo development workflows?
hth,
James
