Public SourceMage Discussion List

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [11.09.12 11:40]:
> El Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:33:12 +0900
> flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> escribió:
> > Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [11.09.10 14:16]:
> > > > This is just plain bad. We have never had actual conventions for
> > > > the section names, so adding section prefixes wouldn't be a
> > > > convention at all. This would likely turn into the same problem
> > > > as the KEYWORDS issue. Additionally, how does one move spells
> > > > from one QA to another?
> > > 
> > > Only for topics (e.g. KDE4 spells would be on kde4*/).
> > 
> > No, you'd have exactly the same problem for QA. If a spell is in
> > stable, but is then updated without being fully tested, it will move
> > to another prefix. The same would happen for a spell that was
> > previously untested, but was then properly tested and thus
> > "graduated" to stable. This is, as I said, just plain bad compared to
> > changing a single line in DETAILS.
> 
> I don't get it. If there's one topic per spell, and the topic doesn't
> normally change over time, why would we have spells flying around
> sections?
> 
> I agree that prefixes are bad for QA, but for dividing into topics they
> should be fine...

It would depend on how topics are handled (which is something that will
be at least partially arbitrary), as well as on upstream changes. For
example, in the first case (how topics are handled), if a spell has a
single name that isn't versioned, but the topic is versioned, then this
could cause movement as older versions get deprecated. Let's assume a
hypothetical scenario: there is a GNOME spell gfoo that currently uses
gnome2 libs, and we have topics gnome2 and gnome3. Then the upstream
authors update the package to use gnome3 libs. A simple VERSION bump is
all that's needed for the spell itself to update to the new version, but
to update the topic (under your approach) you'd have to move the entire
spell directory+contents, whereas under Remko's approach you'd only
change one line. If we can come up with a list of topics or at least
best practices for topics, maybe we can avoid this situation, but
looking at how section names (let alone keywords) have been handled in
our history I doubt this will happen.

The second case may occur more rarely, but imagine the following. Spell
kfoo currently relies on a few KDE libs to do its job, so naturally
would have the KDE topic. But then upstream realizes that their KDE
dependencies were not so necessary, and they develop enough of what they
need that they drop the dependencies and make their package truly
independent of KDE. Thus, the spell would lose its status as a KDE
topic, and maybe revert to an X topic. The reverse could also happen, of
a purely X program later developing into a KDE program. Either way, this
would involve a change of topics, and the same problem occurs with
respect to moving an entire directory rather than changing a single
line.

Personally I think QA should be the primary goal. Why provide a
spell/ISO/etc. that's not worth having? Thus, if it's inherently bad for
QA, IMHO it's inherently bad for the distro.

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpMdwnUzqzo5.pgp
Description: PGP signature