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 EAC8E13877A for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92A66E07D9; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:07:26 +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 81D14E07BA for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (bolobolo1.torservers.net [96.47.226.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04BB633FC9F for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B94A06.1070907@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 13:07:18 +0000 From: hasufell 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] package.mask vs ~arch References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140705210804.GA4133@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20140705210804.GA4133@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 63e4877d-cde2-47d7-8106-28e10a33e500 X-Archives-Hash: 517b89cf623a4154f5fc3d3db63243f3 Greg KH: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED >>> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. >> >> Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their >> changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave >> the project. > > What toys? Were we given some when we became developers? If I had some > I'd send mine back in, but as I don't, I'll keep committing stable > kernel ebuilds that I never test as no one seems to be complaining... > > greg "never make absolute statements" k-h > Depends on what you mean with testing. Just renaming ebuilds like foo-1.2.ebuild -> foo-1.3.ebuild and letting the community figure out if that even makes sense (e.g. the ebuild dies in src_prepare, because a patch fails or is missing) is a bit rough, although it may work if you know the underlying package very well. If you are talking about actually testing and running the software then that's a different story and definitely not within our scope when committing to ~arch. That said, I think it's a reasonable minimum to at least check if an ebuild emerges on my current machine with my current setup before committing to ~arch. If even that fails, what's the point of committing the ebuild?