From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBCE1381FA for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CE05E08D0; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC32E08AD for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phjr-macbookpro.local (87-205-251-51.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.251.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: phajdan.jr) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F393033EDCC for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <538B2D8F.6030200@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:41:35 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Removing src_test from www-client/chromium References: <5384388D.9080701@gentoo.org> <20140527100528.5bf061bf@gentoo.org> <53849CA9.4090205@gentoo.org> <1401354562.15544.1.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140529124614.29a2c0f3@gentoo.org> <538A165C.7010305@gentoo.org> <20140531203058.49aa2332@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140531203058.49aa2332@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lC11Xj3RGo7jAFRN4tmFdkkijBhoa4VVd" X-Archives-Salt: 60ca69f4-7a89-4e76-aef2-26a6c2ded827 X-Archives-Hash: 2f60264d88d3f089b2befc30cc9639de This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --lC11Xj3RGo7jAFRN4tmFdkkijBhoa4VVd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 5/31/14, 8:30 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014 19:50:20 +0200 > ""Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr."" 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=3D497512 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. Pawe=C5=82 --lC11Xj3RGo7jAFRN4tmFdkkijBhoa4VVd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTiy2ZAAoJEE8aJVXqcZkdgLIQAKm1y6xOAeEc4qZy1LT0bUTP dLc8TUFcYAtJhAcSEvhlLSjOT3vh3sIRzx9kYp1EhZIIAFoOzpSfdzq80izE+yYq 8o1qnlfF++cov/OVYVGXEw8k8sbHjJI8Gq8Wav3boezDmq+OqFlxNeU+EcBcBAk9 bWKNFgnEr14cqExD0GTroey5BN7NK6REHaEqFiq0uullav4mEMLjDLCI0r5gFPqI UkoVo5A6Wm29OZP2wazn4Yb3u1UkNV04/ItigxlktWe/BwMYIgRTJzhsG8Acqxhs F9DlwObSo+7lrOBs6W4fSeWHGOQm4tXy9236fIljLd1HCPyZtmANaVtHaGHd4QWr dNsM40sXXdnWjUdAM5ReXoPGRtSGtvdSThN/sLJyYN7Ju7kG2eXSS2WG9AT1Ws7a 9aE5OX/ZUC6CId/jM1OD8KSsWcGA1XSJbYyAnzXYJKyI62eGGO8oBw7hQ/mO6J5h TmDw6DZtoSAqtSUc6O8PoNkZ3/gLRhFC2odkUJaCZUVHPtaS8RuyUzgW5FTVTBZW BjaI7G33u3uI4lXTY7C93dDwRE14LGxmaG4kFFJ/6HTvkqs4CVsndH0h6gRpJH1T 8yqK/drBL1JppSzZJf7B6uV+wSnvDxyVgba2MjiCNTP6YBmyEgquYFJfK4vqJxMN QCN2ZqqYpsJmdwDJIcII =70WF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lC11Xj3RGo7jAFRN4tmFdkkijBhoa4VVd--