From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E0B13832E for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6282F21C012; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EFFAE08D2 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portable (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:6d89:9163:2e7b:9035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B699234087C for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:56:12 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues! Message-ID: <20160818235612.4d7c584d@portable> In-Reply-To: References: <20160817223742.6ccff657.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160818134342.8f572dc789eb8e5692ddeb1f@gentoo.org> <20160818134712.2dcd86b2@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec> <20160818152116.16060257@portable> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3dd2ee16-9556-4e60-9cdf-084c300cd5ef X-Archives-Hash: 2f9c6494dbc8bc7aba9fb16329092eb4 On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:20:41 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/18/2016 06:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 > > Rich Freeman 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 ? > > > I dunno, if testing packages that one maintains is as simple as > reconfiguring a package, testing, and switching back then I don't > think it's unreasonable to ask us to test our own packages. We're > supposed to do that already, and for packages whose dependencies > aren't 100% hashed out, it can help us figure out what the real deps > are. test against... all linkers, all compilers, all libcs, all kernels, all userlannds, all useflags, ... ? :) by all means, please do it, but there are things machines are better at, like ensuring all packages have been tested against gold linker and every failure has been reported