Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On 19/04/07, Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES=collision-detect by default would do a lot more good at this stage than test. Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. -Rob
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On 4/20/07, Rob C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/04/07, Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. This can't be done yet, there's a couple of minor issues to iron out (some python and gcc stuff collisions). After those few remaining issues get finished, yeah this would be a useful default FEATURE. There's quite a couple of bugs (usually pretty cryptic ones) caused by clobbering files that belong to other ebuilds. @Opfer: Users will usually notice many more of those collisions simply because they are testing on a system that they normally use, while developers are often testing in chroots or test boxes with just the bare-bones system installed. -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
Rob C wrote: On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES=collision-detect by default would do a lot more good at this stage than test. Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. The fact you can install a package using collision-detect is not a guarantee that the package don't collide with some other package you don't have installed on your test box (or with a package installed on your box but not with the right USE flags). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. ...or there's thousands of packages not going through the arch teams because they haven't had new versions in $forever or the maintainer has never asked for any version to go stable. Again, I ask everyone to quit being so confrontational and quit trying to prove other people wrong or otherwise try to be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. We really don't need such behavior in what is supposed to be a cooperative community. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
Rob C wrote: On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES=collision-detect by default would do a lot more good at this stage than test. Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. -Rob Rob, Please watch it when saying that the arch teams are not acting as described. I can tell you that we catch what comes to us. We don't get every single package pushed on us as some never go through stable testing, and we don't have every single package installed(that's unrealistic). If they do then if there is a collision a note is filed in the bug and we wait for a fix, as it actually does bail you out of the build. This has been the mantra of at least x86 since the creation of the team. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On 20/04/07, Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob C wrote: On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES=collision-detect by default would do a lot more good at this stage than test. Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. -Rob Rob, Please watch it when saying that the arch teams are not acting as described. I can tell you that we catch what comes to us. We don't get every single package pushed on us as some never go through stable testing, and we don't have every single package installed(that's unrealistic). If they do then if there is a collision a note is filed in the bug and we wait for a fix, as it actually does bail you out of the build. This has been the mantra of at least x86 since the creation of the team. It strikes me that people are often a little too sensative to any possible doubts or aspersions that may be cast there way. Taken in context I can't see why anyone would have a problem with what I wrote. Either arch's are acting as described and the issue persists in which case the action is not sufficient OR the pescribed action is sufficent but not always undertaken or performed. I cant see how it can be both. Regards -Rob
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On 20/04/07, Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob C wrote: On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES=collision-detect by default would do a lot more good at this stage than test. Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing keywording/stablingin my eyes this is sufficient. V-Li Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. -Rob Rob, Please watch it when saying that the arch teams are not acting as described. I can tell you that we catch what comes to us. We don't get every single package pushed on us as some never go through stable testing, and we don't have every single package installed(that's unrealistic). If they do then if there is a collision a note is filed in the bug and we wait for a fix, as it actually does bail you out of the build. This has been the mantra of at least x86 since the creation of the team. It strikes me that people are often a little too sensative to any possible doubts or aspersions that may be cast there way. Taken in context I can't see why anyone would have a problem with what I wrote. Either arch's are acting as described and the issue persists in which case the action is not sufficient OR the pescribed action is sufficent but not always undertaken or performed. I cant see how it can be both. Well there is still the alternative option that the prescribed action is sufficient, but it doesn't catch every corner case because that would be unrealistic, so bugs are going to get reported. Steve -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? Matthias -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Langer wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? Matthias I count 33 open collision bugs http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=collision and 21 of those reported by users with a non-gentoo email. http://tinyurl.com/3x9yt2 Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGKP7np/VmCx0OL2wRAvYhAJ4oK37gVQnDTIK8jHyijgh/aWMYEACbB3JM G6BYMxkVRP3I8PCZFAC3isk= =5DVn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:56 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Langer wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are not acting as you describe. Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? Matthias I count 33 open collision bugs http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=collision and 21 of those reported by users with a non-gentoo email. http://tinyurl.com/3x9yt2 Well, these are quite some bugs; however, at least the x86 arch team (can't speak for the others, but i think they do it the same way) always tests packages with collision-protect. Since i'm an arch tester, i've never seen that a package where we found collisions went to stable, before these where fixed. Of course, we may have missed some collisions every now and then, as it is in practice not possible to *ensure* that a package has no collision with other packages. As for enabling collision-protect by default: I'm not sure if this is a good idea for now, as my experience is, that a significant part of the packages that fail with collision-protect do so because of stale files, that have been left around by (older versions of?) portage. As soon as this is no longer the case, enabling collision-protect by default sounds like a very good idea to me. Matthias -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
