Re: Package Maintenance

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 25-03-09 17:05, Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 25-03-09 09:51, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>>> and a last last thing: about the vetting: not sure whether I fully
>>> understand the idea, but is a lot of this info on what builds on what
>>> not already present in tinderbox?
>>
>> The tinderbox data is purged periodically, so don't depend on it.
>
> In addition, you cannot determine which builds in tinderbox were done
> with an empty TMPDIR -- and unless you have an empty TMPDIR, there's
> really no complete test.

Empty TMPDIR is only once case we should test for, I've seen many times 
that a 'populated' TMPDIR creates bugs, e.g. midori picking up libhildon 
to mention a recent one. So 'always build from empty TMPDIR' will leave 
serious and harder to trackdown bugs unnoticed.
Another example: building qt/e for ppc405 will OOM[1] if you have a 
populated TMPDIR, it will work fine from scratch.
We should certainly do builds from scratch to track down dependency and 
process bugs, but let's not forget about non-empty TMPDIR bugs.

regards,

Koen

[1] It took me a while to track that one down, since the OOM would 
either take sshd down as well, or just lock up the box.