-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/08/2012 06:50 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I have never once been able to grab a portage snapshot and build a >> stage 1, 2, 3 series from it without encountering at least a couple of >> problems with the tree. > > Ditto - the latest issue I've run into is: 443472. Probably won't > impact the average user, and perhaps I should just modify the script > to not bother reading that file and figure out what the latest build > is on its own. > >> >> I think we should consider things that break release media serious >> regressions. I don't know what that entails specifically, but whether >> it need be QA bashing down your door or a quick fix or revert, it sure >> would be nice to get Gentoo to a place where release media always >> works. > > Agreed. If a user can't just burn a CD and then do an emerge kde-meta > there is a problem. > >> >> In short, I think the conversation we should be having should be about >> how to avoid breaking release builds and how to quickly fix problems >> when they're discovered. > > I think those working with catalyst have the most to add regarding > what breaks them. > > As far as detect-ability goes, do we need some kind of tinderbox that > just does a daily build. Perhaps just build from stage3 to a couple > of world targets, including one with some server-oriented software, > one with gnome, and one with kde? I've reported a bunch of bugs with > the EC2 bootstrap script described on my blog (not my original work), > but it is only automated from a build perspective - testing is manual. > That takes about 18 hours to build (with an emphasis on economy), and > I use spot instances so it really only costs maybe a buck or two.
I build about ~1300 packages for amd64 and x86 nearly every day from a fresh snapshot. I'm working on automating it so it really is every day. Once it is automated I suppose I can add kde-meta to the list, even though... well... it's kde. - -Zero > > My experience has been that if it builds it usually works. So, simply > testing for whether the build completes is a pretty-good first step. > > Of course, for system packages our recourse isn't necessarily good, > since we don't have a test branch or anything like that. If we wanted > to revert we'd have to impact users who already upgraded. Obviously > the goal would be to fix in place with a new revbump, assuming that > were possible. > > Rich > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQw2tZAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKrh4P/i1aJCtnVWh5IlTJ5QMd36S+ eE6chQuZGpm+7TLUsGkRG3rfTKe1vTkDj+e0R5KNQTWL3URsfo9Bc+x87EKBDlZd xkx2VRA+AojFcKwJzUDznwAwCYRz9NIhEz+6bX/Gd0w1PR7ig6JucPa9e6dj4XqG pWvf9me3D78WuNOGcQ70jYX7JxNr0+vzzRu0e4EoEphSLYzIPpdz2FIs6CHov0qD y/imKNG8TjpWRP6/It4s3+83B6nsPfGl9JcwlMXjqncAXNHc0WStFWx5oV/NfqT/ myvV/90YdY2oI5++RcWXsI52aEYuTfvnxZM1WghiymW0UVdR7r7OYMHbiE3Tq59f p8kLgGSxwyleOQHmX9o822mIF53A2PRZ/FEs6Jhr7r1R/NTnvMnePQUUMEAntwlq DjPKui7MhQr8KgnekAqw6EU42spgyKc22QXvp2rdAUnviBA5+c5CtU3RDvx5b9GO VDvuCCI24fsXe9/HyKknoyLjMwfQGHIFp8Cy3oLG40pT9LLzip+jehdv+Kdmy7nX x69bsEioIoVw23wtuWou1+a+HAlfZzTQWlr4TbeAZug9V1YGg9HxP/amzxOrBbcs qbT4Rtf332Kzx4FqYfU/ex6uaMN9fHLv6MAfS5D0l3+P5KK9zMc5P8Tlla3pRFZN I0g6imtLeVA0pMQFgsym =2tcz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
