Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > > > against build testing-based

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it > > should never reach the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable >> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in >> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a >> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it > should never reach the arch teams in the first place. This might be the crux of things, as long as

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 07:26 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:> That presumes that the maintainer is the one calling for the > stabilization, and it is not an automated procedure simply due to 30 > days in ~arch. In this particular case, look for the number of bug > reports filed in Gentoo for the issue.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 12/07/17 03:16, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka >>> wrote: On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 12.07.2017 kell 00:13, kirjutas Thomas Deutschmann: > Let's try Debian's testing > approach and move packages to ARCH in time and don't wait for some > magical appearing bug reports because someone really tested a package > in > ~ARCH. Severe problems will be reported

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable package > because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in most cases this > will end with a rushed stabilization once a security bug was fixed in > the package) or move a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

>>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will >>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature subkey >>> on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't have any >>> effect, but the application builds fine. >>> >>> This means gnupg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 04:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to stable is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka > > wrote: > >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >>> > >>> Even if such stabilization is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 07/11/2017

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: The main risk of breakage of a package moving

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to > >> stable is always at build time

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >>> stable is always at build time anyway. >> >> citation needed >> > >

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >> stable is always at build time anyway. > > citation needed > Based on my experience doing package testing in stabilisation

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >> stable is always at build time anyway. > > citation needed > Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to > stable is always at build time anyway. citation needed -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered >>> questions here: >>> - is following seciton

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered >> questions here: >> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? >> - should

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko >>> wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich