| Summary: | Flooded by tinderbox bugs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Torsten Veller (RETIRED) <tove> |
| Component: | [OLD] Development | Assignee: | Gentoo Perl team <perl> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | qa |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Torsten Veller (RETIRED)
2010-01-07 11:37:33 UTC
Why is it a problem for you having bugs open? The problems would still be there, even if they were not reported. I don't get the logic... I'm all fine for removing packages. As for the specifics of _today's_ bug flooding about Perl: scarabeus asked me to test perl-5.10 compatibility with the ~arch tree, so I've been running perl-cleaner, which means that ~1500 packages all depending on Perl are being merged, with their tests executed. You can choose on whether to fix them, leave the bug open so that somebody like David can fix it later, or send out last rites for the package. Since I didn't identify any particularly big problem with Perl modules before I haven't last-rited any, that doesn't mean that you cannot kill the leaves if you don't care about them. (In reply to comment #1) > I don't get the logic... This bugreport probably lacks "logic". But if I constantly work on the perl bug list and it gets longer and longer, I lose motivation. (In reply to comment #2) > I'm all fine for removing packages. Me too. I will mask more packages if upstream has open bugs but doesn't care to fix them. I assigned this bug to perl, because I want to know what they think. That's also why I reopen it. > As for the specifics of _today's_ bug flooding about Perl: scarabeus asked me > to test perl-5.10 compatibility with the ~arch tree, so I've been running So I am asking scarabeus to help fixing the bugs :) Let's see if that works as well. > perl-cleaner, which means that ~1500 packages all depending on Perl are being > merged, with their tests executed. Which perl-cleaner? Did you have any problems with portage not being able to resolve the deps? > You can choose on whether to fix them, leave the bug open so that somebody like > David can fix it later, or send out last rites for the package. I'm pretty sure scarabeus was already helping last night to check at least whether the bugs were 5.10-related or not to begin with. I haven't seen him yet today but that doesn't mean he won't help with the new ones. perl-cleaner-2 is what I'm using, for 5.10 support, and it's not having any trouble, ~1500 packages *is* what the tinderbox merged that used, supported, or worked with perl. It's building package 653 of 811 now, and you got the total of eight bugs since I started this, it's not _really_ that much of a flood is it? Of these, three only have perl@g.o in CC rather than as assignee. Most of the bugs I opened that are for, or have perl CCed are for the site_dir packages that *you* asked about. I've also (just as of late, I know) enabled verbose tests so that you could have more ideas on where the problems lie wrt tests. If the problem is motivation, how do you expect I feel when the "My Bugs" list keep staying over 1400 entries? I must have had a bad day. Sorry. (In reply to comment #4) > It's building package 653 of 811 now, and you got the total of eight bugs since > I started this, it's not _really_ that much of a flood is it? Of these, three > only have perl@g.o in CC rather than as assignee. It's not about 5 or 8 bugs. It's about fixing a bug and getting new ones. I didn't know that you were testing perl-5.10.1. It felt like a never ending stream of bugs. But it seems to be my problem that i have to resolve for myself. > Most of the bugs I opened that are for, or have perl CCed are for the site_dir > packages that *you* asked about. Did I really ask you to file site_dir bugs? I honestly can't remember. I know that I asked you for a list of packages installing to /site (#280728). The idea was to file bugs together with patches like i did for the first five. Nontheless without you filing the bugs, probably not more than the first five would have been filed. A number of the new bugs mentions a fix. So thanks for filing the bugs. (In reply to comment #1) > Why is it a problem for you having bugs open? "We have such a backlog that we don't really look at it :(" This seems to be true for net-mail. If it's someones pet project, it gets ignored. Closing it now. |