Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently
Dear Thomas and everyone else interested! Before re-inventing the wheel, you might take a closer look at this Google summer of code project in 2016: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/2016/Ideas/Continuous_Stabilization I do not know how far the author got but it might be a good starting point... Best wishes, Harald. >>> Thomas Deutschmann 12/13/17 9:59 PM >>> > auto-stabilization: I.e. if a package is in the repository for x days > build bot would try to build the package and mark the package stable if > everything passes. If for some reason maintainer want to block a > specific version they could create a bug or set a flag in an already > existing bug which will cause build bot to ignore this version.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Providing a `service` scripts that speaks OpenRC and systemd
Duncan posted on 09/29/17 2:08 AM as excerpted: > Or are we going to replace rm, and fdisk, and gdisk, and cfdisk, and > cgdisk, and who knows how many other binaries, with "safe" alternatives, > because some gentooer couldn't be bothered to think for a moment whether > a command in some instructions they're following is actually appropriate > to the situation and the environment they're working in? Well, I think I understand what you want to say but actually your argument sounds a little bit strange. Gentoo is about choice, right? So a Gentoo user has the ability to choose between OpenRC or SystemD init systems (by the way, many thanks to the Gentoo developers for making this possible). But some developer(s) might provide a package with a wrapper tool so that instead of manual "translation" to your init system, you can just use type $ service start And some users might want to use this package. So I do not see the problem, as long as nobody forces you to use the service tool. Actually, it adds a new choice for users: Either they use the service-tool or they invoke their init system commands as they have always done. Wouldn't a service-package be a little bit like sys-kernel/genkernel? You may know from the docs that you can call make bzImage, make modules and so on. Or you can (optionally) install sys-kernel/genkernel, configure it once and just call genkernel instead. Nobody forces you to use genkernel and the linux kernel build is always transparent for anybody who wants to use/look into it. Best wishes, Harald Weiner
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure
Dear Duncan, maybe you already know the project at http://orca.varstack.com/ Otherwise I would like to advise the following link to you to answer the question of how to test different USE flag combinations: https://github.com/pallavagarwal07/SummerOfCode16/blob/997078ebbf1aa86ba17fa53e400e4c99d7d640b7/Documents/SAT-Solver.md Actually, the guy who coded on this GSoC project and wrote the article used a SAT solver to find out all possible legal use-flag combinations. So maybe this solution can prevent someone from re-inventing the wheel ;-). Best wishes, Harald Weiner. >>> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> 11/17/16 6:02 PM >>> Michael Palimaka posted on Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:35:26 +1100 as excerpted: > On 18/11/16 01:58, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 06:16:27PM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> USE flags >>> >>> While it is preferable to test every USE flag combination, this is not >>> always possible or appropriate. The package may have a large number of >>> USE flags, a long compile time, or the stabilisation in question may >>> just not call for it. >>> >>> In cases where all USE flags combinations are not being tested, it is >>> still recommended to test: >>> * with all USE flags enabled * with all USE flags disabled >> >> Does this mean we are changing our policy to support users running >> USE="-*"? I'm asking for clarification because in the past we have >> always told users that if they do that they are on their own. > > Testing with all USE flags disabled is more about catching build > failures than guaranteeing the package will necessarily do something > useful. Along the same line but with all flags enabled, how does that apply to exclusive-or flags such as the qt4/qt5 thing that has been quite common? Sure common sense suggests "all" doesn't really mean "all" in that case, but given the opportunity presented by the update, if a guideline for the case can be made explicit... -- 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
