Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass and bug 475502

["Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/17/2013 05:34 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 11:28 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> On 07/17/2013 05:17 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
>>> On 07/17/2013 04:57 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>>> I know there was an announcement about the upcoming change to 
>>>> cmake-utils.eclass, however... it is not enough to give a
>>>> deadline without caring if people actually fixed it by then.
> 
>>>> By doing that you risk breaking stable packages which is not 
>>>> trivial.
> 
>>>> You _must_ do a tinderbox run, test that stuff in an overlay or
>>>>  whatever. You are responsible for ALL reverse deps.
> 
>>>> The way it was done... was not appropriate. Please be more
>>>> careful next time. There are still incoming bugs about broken
>>>> base_src_* calls. (see the tracker)
> 
> 
>>> I discussed this with hasufell on IRC, but I'll lay out the
>>> response on the list too. Yes, this was my fault. We (KDE team)
>>> tested in our overlay, but none of the packages there use the
>>> base_src_* calls, which is why it didn't come up in testing, and
>>> I did not realize that there were packages that did rely on the
>>> implicit base inherit to call base_src_* directly.
> 
>> ...and that is why it isn't permitted to directly use an eclass
>> that you don't inherit.  While I agree testing could (should) have
>> been better, the fact that people ignore the rules for writing
>> ebuilds shouldn't entirely fall on the KDE team.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter in the slightest whos fault it is or who should be
> blamed.
> 
> It is about maintaining stability for the user. Especially when it
> comes to stable ebuilds.
> 
> That means the methods for eclass changes must be more thoroughly.
> 
I completely agree with you, the changes should have been tested better.
 The ebuilds with these errors popping up ALSO should have been tested
better.  Considering this is a QA violation, perhaps it is possible to
add a check in repoman for using something from an eclass which you
didn't inherit.  I doubt the slowdown would be horrible and clearly it
would catch a huge number of QA violations.

I'm not saying this isn't bad, I'm not saying KDE team didn't mess up,
I'm saying a lot of people messed up and the not well enough tested
eclass change found a lot of QA violations which should have been caught
much earlier.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5w/IAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKUQ4P/24f/wkmQHCFskq2P+b8xgpY
PpRkE4XV/AV4oYRFWJ0HNmPcx1gqNVHdjED8yhQ8JqEPFJbgMWRMa1vfkY84Qkqb
b4CIDcmCd1A9jkdFtP6llgCSP/ub0cokB9O1Cb5kAZrDy+VzctB81x6X2uuUF53N
dcoVEga4gqZf5W4RBBE5R7yneB92K5bZjulQsPG22pAfWmKCoVUoaPOh4c104mXt
r+qMboTdHhfNldYdTykKQy5wSMERpKxzPBw9sG3ON96qajSD9nnmVzCVmWZrixfG
WJWf2G5RhLoIjjGPR0d9wUp5w212W7E6OVIpbeye5nX/YpePEYL4YAboAPbBs9Ws
XRWJOpy+/+W4Wr7J+pic41S96w2r31kBoXRpR6+Qrn+JZAaWbRBMadqVhHnYJx+w
cxOFhpKnJRF7l0t76wRevUMoD4aMRi3ZqEjH6SdqIJ9QHq40k6fITrmahq5k8Y24
TZOsGVpGi1XhrjrSfNXnVy9Dstjf5D6W39nzYQI+AaXURynV276fb/BPABHdoRuR
4eITAA6vIQ6rxoTAsOjmy+w2ySOzJkEVK0WrrcaJJAxhu1+ztjmcaq9d5kO7mdIt
5iyEcgNielhrf7wkpe+yM0SwhE5h1/+znhMRgxMAwuktWxK43KMBV39G28b9XMb6
LjG8NvQO4K4LGeNOhWAA
=elf2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----