Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

beniro · 2004-04-30 23:00:38

First off, let me say that Arch is great and I've been a fan since I've been able to use Linux. Arch now runs on my home machine, and I get alot of real work done on it. Great job!

But...

After a recent pacman -Syu, I was left with a severely hampered system, due to some freetype2 problems. It has since been resolved with the excellent help of sys2 on IRC.

The only question I have is the following: What step are taking to assure that a package is up to snuff before it goes into general release?

I heard recently of the gnome 2.6 problems and the creation of the new "testing" suffix for packages under test. Are all packages submitted to this, or only some?

I would propose that ALL packages should go to testing for a week or so before general release to catch any bugs. ALL packages. Even seemingly "unimportant" packages can cause very "important" ones to cease functioning, as we all know.

Recently there have been more problems with packages that I've installed than ever before. This is simply because Arch has grown. It's no longer a baby, and this is a testament to Judd's and the whole team's commitment to excellence. But there are bound to be growing pains, and one potential issue is maintaining the quality we've all come to expect while increasing the quantity of packages for all these new users. It can be done, but some sort of a set system should be implemented, and I think a mandatory "testing" stage for aLL packages would do the trick.

For installing packages in testing, you could just add a --test switch to pacman, or something like that... like "pacman -S --testing freetype2"

What do you think?

kakabaratruskia · 2004-05-01 00:49:15

I would also like that all packages went to testing before they make it to current. Even if they're small packages.
And that about having a pacman option for testing can be done like: pacman -U ftp://archlinux.org/testing/package.pkg.tar.gz

Zephirias · 2004-05-01 03:22:15

Yeah, that would work, though testing every package would be a lot of work, you need to remember that. Hopefully we can get something devised that'll work a little better.

Blaasvis · 2004-05-01 07:35:37

only major releases will go into testing.

so gnome 2.8 will go through testing but gnome 2.6.1 not.
2.6.1 is only a bug fix release. so it should be just the same as 2.6.0 with some fixes.

beniro · 2004-05-01 15:27:14

Maybe in my mind it wouldn't be too much work to send all pkgs to a testing repo first for a week, because a) I think this would allow the users who are into "testing" download these package immediately, and he them do the work of testing and b) I'm not a software developer, really so I don't know.

If no serious bugs are reported in the week, it goes to general release. You could have an uncommented line in pacman: "mode = test" and so by default everyone would be installing the test pkgs.

In fact, why not have, instead of a separate testing repo, a configurable delay built into pacman's config. By default set to 0, downloading pkgs immediately, it could be set up to 7 to only dl and install pkgs that where last updated over seven days ago. This would only require a bit of work in pacman (AFAIK) and would allow end users to hear about big problems before they installed the problem pkgs.

I hope I'm not harping on this issue too much, but I'm really only thinking about the stablizing Arch for the end user.

Does anyone think this idea could be feasible or even implemented as a script on my end?

kakabaratruskia · 2004-05-01 18:27:56

I was thinking, and at least all base packages should go to testing, even if it's a bug release. Imagine you upgrade dhcpcd, and it's broken. You loose inet, and you're screwed, you can't upgrade to the next version, and fix your problem

Zephirias · 2004-05-01 18:38:49

kakabaratruskia wrote:

I was thinking, and at least all base packages should go to testing, even if it's a bug release. Imagine you upgrade dhcpcd, and it's broken. You loose inet, and you're screwed, you can't upgrade to the next version, and fix your problem

That's a good point, too. Not that they might not test a bit, but I think a full testing of all Release Packages should be mandatory, whether or not anyone wants to do it. It's one of those things that needs to be done. I mean, no one wants to have a new release just to have to tack a minor release number onto it a short time later because of dependancy/bug issues. :?

LavaPunk · 2004-05-02 20:07:13

I was thinking, and at least all base packages should go to testing, even if it's a bug release. Imagine you upgrade dhcpcd, and it's broken. You loose inet, and you're screwed, you can't upgrade to the next version, and fix your problem

That's a bit flawed though. If you pacman -Syu and it breaks a package you can find your old package in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/ and "pacman -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/pkgname" and your old pkg will be installed again, fixing your problem.
Personally I feel that it would be a waste of time to put everything first into testing and then into current/extra as this is just more work for the devs. Although the built in delay for pacman sounds interesting. That would create an interesting way to keep yourself up-to-date, but not bleeding edge...

kakabaratruskia · 2004-05-02 22:37:09

LavaPunk wrote:

I was thinking, and at least all base packages should go to testing, even if it's a bug release. Imagine you upgrade dhcpcd, and it's broken. You loose inet, and you're screwed, you can't upgrade to the next version, and fix your problem
That's a bit flawed though. If you pacman -Syu and it breaks a package you can find your old package in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/ and "pacman -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/pkgname" and your old pkg will be installed again, fixing your problem.
Personally I feel that it would be a waste of time to put everything first into testing and then into current/extra as this is just more work for the devs. Although the built in delay for pacman sounds interesting. That would create an interesting way to keep yourself up-to-date, but not bleeding edge...

Sure, and I can always look base packages on the install CD, but I mean, I don't mind if all packages go to testing, but I just want them to work. A way of being sure all packages will work, is sending them all to testing. I don't now other, but I think it's imposible to have broken packages in the repositories.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-04-30 23:00:38

Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#2 2004-05-01 00:49:15

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#3 2004-05-01 03:22:15

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#4 2004-05-01 07:35:37

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#5 2004-05-01 15:27:14

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#6 2004-05-01 18:27:56

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#7 2004-05-01 18:38:49

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#8 2004-05-02 20:07:13

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

#9 2004-05-02 22:37:09

Re: Testing Phase of Packages before general release? HOW? Look!

Board footer