On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:21:16 +0200
> Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400
>> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they build
>> > with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will actually result
>> > in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as well.
>>
>> That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is that
>> QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego left. Maybe
>> QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and avoid asking people
>> to randomly test random packages ?
>
> Yes, tinderboxing makes a lot of sense if the bugs are afterwards
> ignored by package maintainers. Or in the best case, the maintainer
> tells reporter (Toralf) to file the bug upstream.
>

TBH, these are really two different problems.

1.  I think raising awareness of underlinking is good.

2.  I think encouraging developers to test their own packages with the
gold linker is good, because it helps accomplish #1, and increases
their awareness in general.

3.  I think that having a tinderbox systematically testing using the
gold linker is also good.

4.  I think that hitting devs with a cluebat when they ignore valid
bugs is good.

The flip side of this is that we're not necessarily better off if
maintainers just abandon packages because they have terrible build
systems.  At some point you need to work with them.  However, if
they're not willing to at least stick in a slot operator dependency
when asked to, then sure we should have a talk with them.  (A slot op
dep will of course help by triggering rebuilds, but it doesn't
actually directly fix the underlinking issue, which would require
fixing the build system.)

I think the big thing is acknowledging that packages that are missing
dependencies or which are underlinked are defective.  Sure, it would
be nice if somebody else came along and helped find our mistakes.
However, that in itself doesn't excuse us from having made them in the
first place.  And it certainly doesn't excuse giving people a hard
time when they politely point them out.

-- 
Rich

Reply via email to