[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
From:       Kent Fredric <kentfredric () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-08-08 17:29:54
Message-ID: CAATnKFDryahrszOEtF-Gc551DL+E5tKmPXbD+dsmc2SZ3tF_bA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 9 August 2014 04:58, Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maintainers have no feedback from their ebuilds, they all do their best
> but there are no tools
> to formalize their work. No compass. They have no access to user
> space where the packages are installed, unaware how users are using their
> ebuilds. It's the design
> failure that hunts Gentoo from the start - no global intellectual bug
> tracking system. Doing not mistakes
> - not possible, the automated tracking sub-systems should be there but...
> we are where we are.


Some of that is doable, ie: we could have installation metrics systems like
CPAN has a testers network with a matrix showing where a given thing is
failing : http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=CPAN-Meta-Requirements%202.126

But its a lot of work investment to support.

And beyond "it installs" and "its tests pass", its piratically infeasible
to track software failing beyond there.

And some of the reasons we have dependency declarations are to avoid
problems that will ONLY be seen at runtime and WONT be seen during
installation or testing. ( Usually because the problem was found before
there were tests for it )

For that, only manual feedback systems, such as our present bugzilla, are
adequate.


-- 
Kent

*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 August 2014 \
04:58, Igor <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:lanthruster@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">lanthruster@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span style="font-family:&quot;Courier \
New&quot;;font-size:10pt">Maintainers have no feedback from their ebuilds, they all \
do their best but there are no tools  <br> to formalize their work. No compass. They \
have no access to user  <br> space where the packages are installed, unaware how \
users are using their ebuilds. It&#39;s the design  <br> failure that hunts Gentoo \
                from the start - no global intellectual bug tracking system. Doing \
                not mistakes<br>
- not possible, the automated tracking sub-systems should be there but... we are \
where we are.  </span></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Some of \
that is doable, ie: we could have installation metrics systems like CPAN has a \
testers network with a matrix showing where a given thing is failing : <a \
href="http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=CPAN-Meta-Requirements%202.126">http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=CPAN-Meta-Requirements%202.126</a><br>
 <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">But its a lot of work investment to \
support.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">And beyond &quot;it installs&quot; and \
&quot;its tests pass&quot;, its piratically infeasible to track software failing \
beyond there.<br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">And some of the reasons we have \
dependency declarations are to avoid problems that will ONLY be seen at runtime and \
WONT be seen during installation or testing. ( Usually because the problem was found \
before there were tests for it )<br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">For that, \
only manual feedback systems, such as our present bugzilla, are adequate. \
<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>Kent<font \
size="1"><b> <br><br></b></font></div> <div><span \
style="color:rgb(204,204,204)"><font size="1"><b>KENTNL</b> - <a \
href="https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL" \
target="_blank">https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL</a></font></span><br></div><div><br></div></div>
 </div></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]