On Friday 01 July 2011 05:26:19 Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: > > So then how are you going to test the functionality without testing it ? > > So what am I supposed to be testing? Apart that it doesn't kill my CPU, and > that packaging etc. is correct, what is the _functionality_ to be tested? > It's not documented, not even upstream. Just a commit from last September. > > Even if we're not going to keep it why should not we test it on > > cauldron since cauldron is cauldron ?
> Cauldron or not, what can be tested in an addition that nobody knows what > functionality it's _supposed_ to bring? [...] ntrack is supposed to provide more information regarding connection/route change for desktop applications & such so we'll probably see applications or developpers used it later. If we can provide by default an environnement so developers can use it (aka no need to recompile/add 'x' br) if it's not a burden for end users why not providing it ? As i said earlier it's cauldron, so we can add it & remove build dependency even more use it to report bug upstream if something is broken /not working as expected. From my point of view it's allow us to have eventually more interaction from upstream as a distribution trying to follow upstream as much as possible & then probably get more developers using our distribution. Anyway it just seems > Not to minimize your work as a packager. But I _feel_ (I didn't say > _believe_) that, with huge projects such as KDE4, adding a non-mandatory > dependency should be pondered on more carefully that with small projects -- > because of the impact. Well i guess it was a little bit tested before getting merged in kde master even as an optionnal buildrequires. if it was such problematic i guess it would not have been merged or dropped after... -- Balcaen John Jabber ID: [email protected]
