[arch-general] arch health

[Francisco Barbee]

 On 20 April 2017 at 16:21:21, Eli Schwartz  via
arch-general wrote:
> Actually, Allan said he dislikes that concept
entirely and refuses to
> merge it at all because:
> 1) CFLAGS+="-flto" should be set in
makepkg.conf, not libmakepkg
> 2) PGO will not be a thing because "I am not
adding an option to makepkg
> that does non-deterministic optimisation."
> 3) PGO that involves makepkg being
context-sensitive between two makepkg
> runs, is not an option; use a wrapper script
with multiple
> makepkg.conf's instead.

> Lack of time is not the issue, in fact, Allan
has reviewed *lots* of
> pacman/makepkg patches, and merged lots of them,
in the time he has
> refused to even consider these.

That was the beginning but it seems you didn't
follow the discussion, see:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2016-April/021028.html
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1628371#p1628371

> Failing testsuites mean that real issues will
never be discovered, which
> means the whole point of running testsuites is
nullified. So no, it is
> not a minor bug.

Sorry, but that's pure speculation. Did you asked
upstream if this bug is serious or the actual
maintainer ask them? If one Arch user didn't
report it it would be never fixed.

> I don't know why openssl 1.1 is still in
testing. But I do know that
> merely assuming it is ready to be moved today
except for that package,
> is rather naive. I am going to assume that the
Devs have actual reasons
> for what they do.

Again you speculate. I've seen to many times
maintainers forget about their packages for months
until other devs name them explicitly in arch-dev
mailinglist. 

> Aside: your emails seem to be wrapped in an
over-aggressive manner, why
> such short lines?

I'm very sorry. I was annoyed that discussion is
moving out of topic. That was inappropriate