FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-28-2011, 04:37 PM
"Albert W. Hopkins"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 17:19 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I don't think that's fair. Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the
> exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and
> configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in
> testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried
> to build it.

I have.. even for packages w/o a USE flag. Granted, I'm not blaming the
developers.. they have a lot of work to do. But it *does* happen.
Usually the fix is easy enough.

Just yesterday I reported a bug with webkit-gtk. The gtk2 version
doesn't build at all (it's an upstream issue that they call a
gtk3-specific function). No matter what combination of USE flags you
use it wasn't gonna build, but it was obvious nobody had ever tried to
build it, not even upstream apparently. :P

-a
 
Old 11-28-2011, 05:28 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P

Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...

I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
it was.

I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither

--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
 
Old 11-28-2011, 06:16 PM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:

Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:

On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:

With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
to be completely and consistently broken, either.

If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
hour
getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
state.

If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade


Sorry to add more to the whining but...

Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
things, break them, and report bugs.


Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means
not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.

~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
didn't even try it once".


Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
testing you propose?


About 2 minutes? Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
machine. There you go :-/
 
Old 11-28-2011, 06:45 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>>>> hour
>>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>>>> state.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree. *Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>>>> things, break them, and report bugs.
>>>
>>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. *That means
>>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>>
>>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
>>> are problems". *It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
>>> didn't even try it once".
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
>> testing you propose?
>
> About 2 minutes? *Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
> machine. *There you go :-/

That's a facetious answer, and you're purposely only examining a tiny
piece of the testing surface. Hindsight is 20/20, though only if
you're lucky.

Perhaps they've never seen this type of failure before, and they could
add a single test to whatever unit test suite they may be using.
Perhaps that's an improvement they can make going forward.

To fully test OpenRC, you'd want a two-stage testing harness. The
outer stage would generate Gentoo VMs with every plausibly-relevant
USE flag permutation crossed against as many automatically-generated
permutations of OpenRC configuration as could be considered plausibly
encountered.

For each generated VM, spin it up. Watch for some kind of watchdog
"hey, I booted successfully!" indicator. Then spin up a testing
harness *inside* the VM to ensure all services started and behave
correctly. Dump a report to the vmhost detailing that everything went
well (or didn't), and hibernate the VM. vmhost looks at the report and
decides whether or not to keep the saved VM state.

That's an extraordinary amount of testing to do. And that's what I see
argued as what ~arch is for; instead of having a script whip up and
test hundreds of virtual machines, people running ~arch do that
testing. Gentoo devs get reports for the features and combinations
that people actually *use*, and can spend less time fixing features
nobody is using. (And it's obvious none of the OpenRC devs are using
parallel boot themselves, or they would have caught this. Perhaps
that's why it's experimental; nobody who actively uses that feature is
keeping up with HEAD and offering patches.)


--
:wq
 
Old 11-28-2011, 06:57 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

Am 28.11.2011 20:16, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>>>> hour
>>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>>>> state.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>>>> things, break them, and report bugs.
>>>
>>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means
>>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>>
>>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
>>> are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
>>> didn't even try it once".
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
>> testing you propose?
>
> About 2 minutes? Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
> machine. There you go :-/
>
>

Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood. What about
*my* (imaginary) issue with rc_depend_strict="YES" or one of the other
two dozen parameters you can set there. Not even considering different
init scripts in different run levels and so forth. I, for example, start
dmcrypt _before_ lvm because all lvm volumes are on one encrypted
partition. Do you want that to be tested as well or is your experimental
feature more valuable than mine?

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What about all the other scripts
and config files which belong to baselayout2? What about all other
packages? If the openrc dev has to test his configs, surely the SSH dev
also has to because a crashing ssh daemon leaves everyone with a
headless server in quite a uncomfortable situation.

Let's make a simple example, shall we? Let's say we only want to test
all yes/no variables in rc.conf. There are 7 of them. We also remove
those two only affecting output and you still have 5. That are 2^5=32
combinations that you consider valid and therefore want to be tested.
Now we have a dev spending one hour doing nothing but reboots. Even
changing each variable (I counted 27 in total) only once takes a lot of
time and also different hardware capabilities (like a second network
interface).

Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat
(maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and
cost lots of money.

Regards,
Florian Philipp
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:49 PM
"Albert W. Hopkins"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:57 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat
> (maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and
> cost lots of money.

Yeah, and even *they* send test pre-releases to some of their clients
and beg them to test and submit bugs. Because no one has the resources
to test *everything*.

But people who put themselves in the *testing* branch are basically
volunteering to be crash-test dummies and really shouldn't be surprised
when something doesn't work.
 
Old 11-29-2011, 12:11 AM
Dale
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:


But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P

Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...

I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
it was.

I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither




Uh oh. I do that too. Thing is, I can't forget hal. O_O I do forget
those little things I run into and fix easily tho.


Is it age? :-(

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 
Old 11-29-2011, 12:41 AM
James Wall
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
>> "Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org> *wrote:
>>
>>> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
>>> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
>>
>> Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
>> stopped noticing them...
>>
>> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
>> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
>> it was.
>>
>> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither
>>
>
>
> Uh oh. *I do that too. *Thing is, I can't forget hal. *O_O *I do forget
> those little things I run into and fix easily tho.
>
> Is it age? *:-(
>
> Dale
>
> :-) *:-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
> you interpreted my words!
>
>
>

You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you....

--
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
 
Old 11-29-2011, 01:30 AM
Dale
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

James Wall wrote:

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:


But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P

Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...

I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
it was.

I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither



Uh oh. I do that too. Thing is, I can't forget hal. O_O I do forget
those little things I run into and fix easily tho.

Is it age? :-(

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!




You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you....



Sorry. ;-)

< Dale goes back to his hole now >

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 
Old 11-29-2011, 04:33 PM
Andrea Conti
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

> Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood.

Guys,

I did not want to start a flamewar. I've been running ~arch for years
and I've had my fair share of breakage, which I'm perfectly fine with
(e.g. I'm not complaining that dev-lang/php-5.4.0._rc2 currently fails
to compile with USE=+snmp). It's my choice to run unstable, and I only
do so on machines where a hosed system is a nuisance rather than an
emergency.

I write software for a living, so I know perfectly well that covering
every possible configuration in your tests is extremely difficult,
especially if you're not granted ample resources (i.e. time+$$$)
specifically for that purpose.

I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent
boots).

Things were handled well: as soon as the issue was reported, the
breakage was acknowledged and the offending version was masked and then
removed.

That's all as far as I'm concerned. No data was lost and no kittens were
killed. Let's move on.

andrea
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org