Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Removing src_test from www-client/chromium

["\"Paweł Hajdan, Jr.\"" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2892 bytes --]

On 5/31/14, 8:30 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2014 19:50:20 +0200
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This is one of my points: I don't remember a single chromium bug filed
>> in Gentoo that would be caught by a test or that a failing test
>> actually detected.
> 
> Your point covers the lack of tests, or tests that are non-fatal;
> however, it doesn't cover tests that are fatal, what if they fail?

I'm confused by the distinction of fatal and non-fatal tests. Neither
upstream nor the Gentoo chromium package makes that distinction.

>> By the way, I don't remember seeing many reports about font issues or
>> tab crashes. Please make sure to file them when they occur, or just
>> point me to them in case I somehow missed them.
> 
> They usually go straight to upstream, though I've managed to somehow
> fix it up; as for Gentoo, some people create forum threads about them.

I can't speak for other people, but please consider reporting issues to
Gentoo first. Our bug queue is under 30 bugs, while upstream is several
thousand. Once we can confirm a bug clearly belongs to upstream, we can
tell the reporter to file bug upstream or do that ourselves, but keeping
Gentoo out of the loop seems to increase the time needed to fix a bug.

> (One was due to a library compiled with a less common flag, the other
> due to fontconfig being a regression magnet; both fun to debug, the
> former a test wolud've caught, the latter is due to the lack thereof)

If there's something that could be changed e.g. in chromium's
dependencies, please let me know. There are cases where we require
certain USE flags to be set on dependencies for things to work properly.

About the issue that a test would have caught: was that a chromium test?
If so, which one?

>>> While I don't run tests myself; the need for them is clear, for
>>> those that aim for more production ready systems (eg. university
>>> network PCs).
>>
>> This seems too theoretical to me. I'd be fine with someone
>> volunteering to maintain chromium's src_test in Gentoo. Unless we
>> have such a person though, it seems to mostly take valuable focus
>> away from bugs that definitely *do* affect our users, for no provable
>> benefit for Gentoo.
> 
> What about provable benefit for upstream? Does upstream /dev/null them?

Effectively yes. For an example see
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497512 and
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/OdX7ShsOqsM/-R9sexJAEa4J

The failure is not Gentoo-specific, and is not a bug in code but problem
with the test (it makes assumptions about internal glibc
implementation). It actually fails on the latest Ubuntu LTS Trusty Tahr,
which means the test will have to be fixed or disabled upstream. But 6
months of no reaction is not really a good sign IMHO.

Paweł



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 841 bytes --]