From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: changing the developer profile: FEATURES="test" -> FEATURES="test-fail-continue"
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:59:27 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100611215927.61574c95@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20100607140250.2d8071e2@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1505 bytes --]
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:02:50 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I see more and more calls for either 1) "fixing the test suite", as if
> that is suddenly not an UPSTREAM issue but the ebuilds' maintainers'
> When instead a test suite should do a SKIP but erroneously does a FAIL,
> then RESTRICT=test is not the solution. Fixing the test suite is, but
> then that's not the maintainer's problem, but upstream's. Oddly enough
> we have QA checks in place (for ICEs, for instance) that direct users
> directly to upstream (through the HOMEPAGE variable), when it's
> suddenly the maintainer's problem if a package fails its test suite
> (because of FEATURES=userpriv or a missing kernel feature, perhaps -
> nothing the maintainer can prepare the user's system for).
I'm having trouble understanding how you can say fixing build failures is
part of a maintainer's duties while fixing test failures is upstream's
problem. A test failure _is_ a build failure. Yes, we should get it fixed
upstream, just like any other bug. Packages can fail to compile with
userpriv or missing kernel features too. Should we also send users directly
to upstream in these cases? Can you explain the difference?
I agree fully with all your other points.
--
fonts, there's a hole in my neighbourhood
gcc-porting, down which of late i cannot help but fall
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-12 3:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-04 15:11 [gentoo-dev] RFC: changing the developer profile: FEATURES="test" -> FEATURES="test-fail-continue" "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2010-06-04 15:35 ` Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)
2010-06-04 15:50 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2010-06-04 16:48 ` Jeroen Roovers
2010-06-04 17:00 ` Jeroen Roovers
2010-06-06 3:46 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2010-06-07 10:10 ` Thilo Bangert
2010-06-07 12:02 ` Jeroen Roovers
2010-06-07 14:05 ` Thilo Bangert
2010-06-12 3:59 ` Ryan Hill [this message]
2010-06-07 13:53 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2010-06-09 17:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2010-06-10 16:28 ` Brian Harring
2010-06-10 16:36 ` Samuli Suominen
2010-06-10 17:36 ` Brian Harring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100611215927.61574c95@gentoo.org \
--to=dirtyepic@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox