Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb Rémi Cardona:
> Piotr Jaroszyński a écrit :
> > On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 21:53:36 Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> >> I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the
> >> message I replied to. They both provide more or less the same
> >> choice to the use
Hi Daniel,
Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb Daniel Gryniewicz:
> Honestly, tests are nice, but too many of them are broken upstream,
> and we are not (and should not be, IMO) in the position of fixing
> them all. If a developer wants to work with her upstream to fix the
> tests in her packages, gr
Piotr Jaroszyński a écrit :
On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 21:53:36 Maurice van der Pot wrote:
I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the message I
replied to. They both provide more or less the same choice to the user.
Err I wasn't providing any choices for users yet, I only tho
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:12 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to
> > figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree? This
> > seem
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:55:05AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> You're talking implementation details. This isn't the time for that!
> No-one has worked out what, if anything, is to be done, so you can't
> know how much work whatever it is is.
>
> Having said that, there's no need to figure it
On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to
> figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree? This
> seems like a *huge* amount of work, work that I have no plan on doing
> for
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:46:56PM -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:32 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I'd approach it a bit different: Before creating fixed classification
> > groups I'd first identify the attributes of tests that should be used
> > for those classificatio
On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to
> figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree? This
> seems like a *huge* amount of work, work that I have no plan on doing
> fo
On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:32:20 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (btw, could someone give some real examples for packages with
> "necessary" tests?)
There're two groups of packages with necessary tests that come to mind:
those that are very compiler / system sensitive (certain scientifi
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:32 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> I'd approach it a bit different: Before creating fixed classification
> groups I'd first identify the attributes of tests that should be used
> for those classifications.
> a) cost (in terms of runtime, resource usage, additional deps)
>
On Tue, 1 May 2007 15:08:56 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1,
> but there was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important
> and thus I want to discuss them a little more, but in more sensi
On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first*
> time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every
> time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do
> that mu
On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:53:36 +0200
Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Too complicated. Bombarding the user with pointless alternatives is
> > not the same as giving the user choice.
>
> I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the message
> I replied to. They both p
On Wednesday 02 of May 2007 00:28:42 Josh Saddler wrote:
> Not a knee jerk reaction, just a strong one. One of the key reasons why
> mandatory tests were not desired was the fact that sometimes much more
> stuff will be installed than what you'd normally get. Exhibit A:
> robbat2's message just sen
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700
> Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first*
>> time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every
>> time the user installs a package? no. oh hell
On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first*
> time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every
> time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do
> that m
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:10:28PM +0200, Jure Varlec wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 21:24:17 R??mi Cardona wrote:
> > - require other and bigger deps than what the actual package requires
> Hm, perhaps this one should be split into:
> -- additional deps are already installed
> -- additional
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
>>> fex:
>> Please don't abuse the English language in that manner.
>
> Since you took the time to highlight this apparently grave injustice to
> the English language, would you please explain it to me so I can do
> better next time?
he just doesn't like it because it's
> Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
> (...)
How many of these we can find is not really that important. I mentioned the
different categories just to show that tests are not black and white and we
need more then boolean choice to make good use of them.
What we ne
On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 21:24:17 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> - require other and bigger deps than what the actual package requires
Hm, perhaps this one should be split into:
-- additional deps are already installed
-- additional deps are not yet installed
Regards
signature.asc
Description: This
On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 21:53:36 Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the message I
> replied to. They both provide more or less the same choice to the user.
Err I wasn't providing any choices for users yet, I only thought about the
below as thi
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:35:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:18:28 +0200
> Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd say, let the user decide based on the properties
>
> Too complicated. Bombarding the user with pointless alternatives is not
> the same as g
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
> there
> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
> discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
>
> Firstly each test can be(not all
federico ha scritto:
> William L. Thomson Jr. ha scritto:
>
>> Last rites for media-sound/jsynthlib
>>
>> Last upstream release was 0.20-beta, released March, 2005.
>>
>> The package has been masked, and will be moved to Java junkyard overlay
>> after 30 days pass. Unless someone cares about thi
On Tuesday 01 of May 2007 19:18:28 Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> Isn't it easier to list a set of boolean properties of _individual_
> tests?
It was just a list of different test classes, which came to mind. The
question, which still persist, was how precisely we want to divide them into
groups as
On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:18:28 +0200
Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd say, let the user decide based on the properties
Too complicated. Bombarding the user with pointless alternatives is not
the same as giving the user choice.
I'm also highly sceptical that the properties you lis
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:08:56PM +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
> - not existant
> - non-functional
> - not runnable from ebuild
> - useful but unreasonable resource-wise
> - useful and reasonable resource-wise
> - necessary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
>> there
>> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
> there
> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
> discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
>
Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:29:43PM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> You are declared official Project Status Report Gathering Manager.
>
> I have to concede, I saw this last thursday and sat on it all weekend, mulling
> it over. I realize you (most likely) meant it
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
> there
> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
> discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
>
> Firstly each test can be(not all
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
for any team:
http
On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:24:34 -0400
Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
> [...]
> > - necessary
>
> Could you qualify, please? Is this "necessary for the (non-tes
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
[...]
> - necessary
Could you qualify, please? Is this "necessary for the (non-test) build
artifact"?
If so, I'd not call it a test, just part of the build that's in
Hello,
There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but there
was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
- not
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
for any team:
https://bugs.gent
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
G
On 01/05/07, Peter Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> level stuff?
They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
alternative medium
Am Montag 30 April 2007 21:00 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
> The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them
> doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them. It may be
> that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form -
> but the point is that the
39 matches
Mail list logo
