Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1134 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Calling for a new openSUSE development model
  • From: todd rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:18:27 +0200
  • Message-id: <>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Stephan Kulow <coolo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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

Greetings, Stephan

So the question is how people know. I know a lot of repos created
temporary gcc 4.7 build targets, but apparently not all. If there is
a major change like that coming down the pipe, perhaps a solution
would be to be able to automatically push out a temporary build target
to all repos, get a report back on how it compares to the current
factory builds, then remove it when the change lands.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread