On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the package
> would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any bugs
> at all, just (automatically) email the output back to the overlay developer?

Which means I wouldn't be filing bugs for the problems with the
_existing_ packages that are in tree, which is what the users actually
_use_ by default.

If the users are forced to use overlays to get working packages, then I
feel I'm perfectly right with screaming at the developers who are using
overlays for development because they leave users in a sorry state.

Let me try to re-explain this to you: let's say I import overlay $foobar
and $foobar has library A and packages B C D E and F. Now there's
package G in main tree that also uses library A. It fails in the
tinderbox run. Who I have to report it to? Well, I first have to figure
out where the fuck the version of library A is coming from when it
failed, which is far from easy. Then I have to report it to the overlay
maintainer (And you say it's easier by email? FFS you have no idea how
bugs work, do you?) who might or might not act on it, and in the mean
time I'd be overlooking _real_ bugs in the tree.

Now let's say I add more one overlay and there are _three_ copies of
library A each with a different set up, parameters, flags etc. and the
packages between these don't work correctly. Who do I report bugs for?

So seriously, you've got to get a grip on the _trouble_ that overlays
cause, and that about every developer had to face at one point or
another. You're romanticizing overlays because they give _you_ as an
user power, but you're ignoring all the headaches that the developer get
from them.

And you're also failing to understand how the whole tinderbox works. I
suggest you read the two posts I wrote on the topic, which will form a
basis for the documentation of the tinderbox:

http://goo.gl/SM9Rp
http://goo.gl/SF0Dz

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Reply via email to