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/997078ebbf1aa86ba17fa53e400e4c99d7d6
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:57:26 +
> "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
>
>> - eg metadata.xml (nothing for user systems is impacted by it, other
>>than to give output about packages).
>
> Idle thought: Given there are classes of vulnerabilit
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
> For instance, the systemd-tmpfiles implementation has some
> features concerning btrfs which are not (yet) supported by
> opentmpfiles. Some users might want to use that features.
>
Well, this was the main reason I suggested that we could j
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:13:35 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> What is the *real* risk that kde-apps/kcalc builds against stable
> dev-libs/gmp but then starts producing funny numbers at runtime?
>
> Let's put it another way - assume we're stabilising a new version of
> dev-libs/gmp instead. Shoul
On 17/11/16 03:50 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:07:32 -0500
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> OpenRC's init scripts all do that already, more or less. tmpfiles.d
>> *.conf files are not used for this purpose -- definitely not by
>> OpenRC, and most likely also not by upstream pac
Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> If systemd-tmpfiles can work when systemd isn't running
According to a brief test (not very exhaustive), this seems to work,
though I did not investigate whether it requires that e.g. dbus is
running.
Without entering the discussion _how_ an init-script should be
installe
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:57:26 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> - eg metadata.xml (nothing for user systems is impacted by it, other
>than to give output about packages).
Idle thought: Given there are classes of vulnerabilities related to XML
parsing and decoding, any systems that attemp
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> Realistically, software should ensure the directories it needs at
>> runtime are created through their own code, but upstreams are lazy [...]
>
> This isn't really being lazy. This is just not re-inventing the
>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved by the maintainer?
> > Has it ever been acceptable to go around stabilising random packages?
> >
>
> Explicit > Implicit when we're updating things anyways.
>
> There ar
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 07:19:02PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> Fwiw, from my own perspective; not allowing mismatches if file exists
> makes perfect sense.
>
> Also GLEP says:
> * MISC entries where the file is missing may optionally be ignored as
> by non-strict package managers.
> *
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:07:32 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > The package does not depend on functionality provided by tmpfiles.d.
> > The package does depend on directory being created. Which was normally
> > done via keepdir.
> >
>
> Last I check
On 11/17/2016 11:30 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> The tree-signing GLEP that updates Manifest2 is clear to state that MISC
>>> files which mismatch between disk and Manifest should generate a
>>> non-fatal warning unless some strict mo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Realistically, software should ensure the directories it needs at
> runtime are created through their own code, but upstreams are lazy and
> so they don't bother because, hey, we can have this tmpfiles.d *.conf
> file to have the system
On 17/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:10:28 -0500
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> On 17/11/16 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:10:28 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/11/16 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
> >> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > The tree-signing GLEP that updates Manifest2 is clear to state that MISC
> > files which mismatch between disk and Manifest should generate a
> > non-fatal warning unless some strict mode is in effect.
>
> The mismatch case is not sup
On 17/11/16 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 07:49:07PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
> > Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > > On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
> > > >
On 17/11/16 12:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:02:25AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
>>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> On 16/11/16 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On 11/17/2016 07:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 02:25 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Brian Evans wrote:
>>> Non-existent MISC files are ignored.
>
> That has been true since Manifest2 was implemented, in Portage 2.1. It
> has allowed those who do
On 11/16/2016 02:25 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Brian Evans wrote:
>> Non-existent MISC files are ignored.
That has been true since Manifest2 was implemented, in Portage 2.1. It
has allowed those who don't want ChangeLogs to exclude them via rsync
exclud
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:02:25AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> On 16/11/16 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
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
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning runtime testing. I just
> think that, considering the state of the stable tree, we should consider
> very careful in which situations we actually gain value from it. That's
> for another threa
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 l
On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> On 16/11/16 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:14:02AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius 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 ques
On 11/17/2016 02:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 18/11/16 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> Strictly speaking GLEP 40 forbids it still, although some arch teams
>> have made announcements to approve it, see e.g [1,2]. I wouldn't be
>> surprised if one of the results of the stable WG is an
On 18/11/16 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> Strictly speaking GLEP 40 forbids it still, although some arch teams
> have made announcements to approve it, see e.g [1,2]. I wouldn't be
> surprised if one of the results of the stable WG is an updated GLEP 40
> that (new GLEP replacing existing)
On 17/11/16 23:49, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 02:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>> # strict - have portage react strongly to conditions that have the
>> potential to be dangerous
>> ...
>> FEATURES="collision-protect ipc-sandbox network-sandbox sandbox
>> split-log split-elog strict
On 11/17/2016 01:49 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 02:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
...
>
>> === amd64 ===
>> * Any developer may perform {{keyword|amd64}} stabilisations - it is not
>> necessary to be on the arch team
>>
>> === x86 ===
>> * Any developer may perform {{keyword|x86
On 17/11/16 22:56, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 17/11/16 20:16, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
* A leaf package such as {{package|kde-apps/kcalc}} may not require any
runtim
On 11/17/2016 02:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> # strict - have portage react strongly to conditions that have the
> potential to be dangerous
> ...
> FEATURES="collision-protect ipc-sandbox network-sandbox sandbox
> split-log split-elog strict test userfetch userpriv usersandbox"
Maybe "stri
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 17/11/16 20:16, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka
>> wrote:
>>> * A leaf package such as {{package|kde-apps/kcalc}} may not require any
>>> runtime testing at all
>>
>> I'm not really a big fan o
On 17/11/16 20:16, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> * the default USE flag
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> 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
> * the default USE flag settings
>
I imagine that in practice only the la
38 matches
Mail list logo
