Re: PTS: RC bugs in dependencies
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:51:08AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 02:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I wonder if doing this recursively is a good idea or not. If we decide
> > to do that, your approach to limit the recursion is a good one.
>
> AOL on the fact that doing it recursively is _not_ a good idea. My main
> argument for it is that direct dependencies are those that the
> maintainers took the time to explicitly add (either manually, or by
> delegating that choice to some helper tool that fills in substvars). As
> such, those dependencies are those that are most likely to be meaningful
> to the package maintainer.
This argument makes sense to me. The recursion comes from my reasoning after
Neil explained that entire packages trees were removed due to to RC bugs. Your
argument makes me realize that a solution can be found at the first level of
reverse dependencies by replacing the RC buggy package with an alternative, so
then there's no need to advertise the RC bug all the way recursively.
> And of course there is the bloat risk, that could diminish the usefulness of
> this check.
True, and I had this in mind from the start. I don't want to flood all PTS
pages with the same RC bug numbers. That would only cause irritation.
> Other than that, it sounds like a very good idea to me too.
The idea is Neil's, and Paul brought it to my attention.
OK, I'll continue my experiment without the recursion, and see where it leads.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: