sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 20:20:51 -0700
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:32:21PM +0200, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:14:04PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > Quoting Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>:
> > <snip>
> > > What about updates without a bug? E.g. I update libmpeg2 knowing that
> > > all spells using it will need to be recompiled due to an ABI change.
> > > This doesn't happen often enough to warrant the onslaught of triggers
> > > we'd need to prevent it. But it should be documented, so we need a way
> > > to get that info to the people doing the actual stable grimoire
> > > releases.
> > > I'm not sure what the best option is here. One option would be a
> > > text file in the spell describing such things, another would be filing
> > > bugs on such updates explicitly and get those to the QA team.
> >
> > Talked about in the linux-pam bug:
> > http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680
> >
> > Short:
> > A versioned trigger based on the minor number (2.4 -> 2.6, e.g.) should be
> > enough, and only parse "valid" VERSION tags (such as x.x.x, not
> > BetaIII-42b and
> > such). Then we could have:
> >
> > wget/TRIGGERS:
> > on_minor_update gettext cast_self
> >
> > */TRIGGERS:
> > on_minor_update linux-pam cast_self
> >
> > Then, only when linux-pam goes from 0.76 -> 0.77 would a trigger be
> > caused, and
> > not just any recompile of Linux-PAM.
> >
> > openssh/TRIGGERS:
> > on_revision_update openssl cast_self
> >
> > This way openssh would only be updated when openssl goes from 0.9.6 ->
> > 0.9.7
> > (since their revisions change the shared library names), but not 0.9.6a ->
> > 0.9.6b (hopefully).
This wouldnt be all that hard to implement actually. We just have to
write version parsing functions...You can actually do this with some
hackery in a run_script trigger.
>
> This would definitely help for some things, but it doesn't solve what I
> was talking about.
> What about a _single_ update that needs recompiles of dependent spells?
> Triggers don't help here as those spells can't know about that recompile
> dependency before it happens. It's something cleanse --fix usually
> catches nicely, but I want a way for gurus to document that so the QA
> team can put it in the release notes of the stable grimoire.
>
Im not sure I follow why this wouldnt work. An on_cast/cast_self trigger
is forced dependency+recast from the triggeree (wget/mplayer) to
the triggerer(gettext/libmpeg2). The on_foo_update trigger is just
a conditional variant of on_cast. It would compare versions of the
triggering spell and decide if the trigger needs to be pulled. Whereas
on_cast, and other triggers are unconditional.
And of course, check_self could be run instead of cast_self for efficiency
reasons...
On a side note, trigger support should get a lot better in the coming
months, once i finish up dispel depends I'll either work on first-class
trigger support (integrate with libdepends), or I'll work on newer,
better downloading code.
-Andrew
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | acedit at armory.com |
|Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 05/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal, Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Eric Sandall, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal, Arwed von Merkatz, 05/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal, Seth Alan Woolley, 05/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal, Andrew, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Eric Sandall, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
David C. Haley, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 05/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] detailed QA stable grimoire and ISO proposal,
Seth Alan Woolley, 05/03/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.