On 14.06.2012 14:33, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Am 14.06.2012 12:19, schrieb Stephan Kulow:
To me the main reason to go there is that *other*
people actually can
verify their work is good and that factory is usable and testable. If
that means we won't get new automake or new gcc soonish, I can accept
it. If someone really wanted either, they would know where to find it
and fix the problems.
But OTOH this might punish e.g. gcc for no good reason. Example: the
"zypper fails with gcc47" mess. Everyone blamed gcc47, but after looking
at the valgrind output, it looked to my untrained eye as if the zypper
code was the one to blame. But should the gcc guys have to fix others
crap just because they now trigger the broken code to actually break? I
have no answer for that.
No, but the ones wanting gcc updates should be the ones
who tell the
zypp guys that the new gcc shows a problem in zypper and they should fix
it, so gcc update can continue.
It can't be that the gcc update is pushed into factory and then everyone
How do the gcc guys find out that new gcc breaks zypper?
How does anyone find out that a change in their package somehow breaks
some other package?
Especially problems that only show up in run-time and don't break obs
building or packaging. I don't see how it can be their responsibility to
know all that.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org