[arch-general] arch health

[Eli Schwartz]

On 04/20/2017 03:51 PM, Francisco Barbee via arch-general wrote:
>> 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

I remember that. A badly-written patch for something far more generic,
that Allan agreed he would be potentially willing to merge, but which
really needs to be fixed and which anyway does not implement PGO, LTO,
or anything similar (since Allan continues to believe that libmakepkg
should not do this even if thirdparty libmakepkg extensions do).

Maybe Allan would merge the stub for extending buildenv, if someone who
actually cared would fix it. In the meantime, once again there are
wrapper scripts...

>> 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.

It is completely irrelevant whether upstream thinks testsuite failures
are serious bugs. What matters is, the Arch maintainer for binutils
*absolutely refuses* to enable anything that causes testsuite failures.
It *has* been reported upstream. It hasn't been fixed yet, AFAIK.

>> 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.

I am speculating just as much as you are speculating, so how about we
compromise and *both of us* shut up?

:D

>> 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

I am not even sure what the text formatting options of your email
software has to do with your emotional state of mind regarding this
thread. This is a purely software-related matter!

Regardless... you are still doing it. Please fix your software or use
something that isn't broken, because it is difficult to read what you
write when my email software (Thunderbird) renders your email as
completely mangled.

It appears that whatever you are using, is breaking every line in two.
Which is irritating in your replies (because super-short lines are
awkward) and downright broken in your quotes, because every other line
gets *unquoted*.

(I have extensively edited my own quotes, to ensure proper quoting
levels and line-wrapping. This is quite tiresome...)

-- 
Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20170420/a9dea8be/attachment.asc>