Re: --build-as-nobody by default.

On 4/14/12 6:58 AM, Dustin Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Max Horn <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     How about this strategy instead: First we turn off BuildAsNobody
>     globally again by default. Then we make a release with the new
>     BuildAsNobody field and command line option in it. *Then* we email
>     to -devel and ask all authors to check their packages (and how)
>     and add BuildAsNobody as needed. Meanwhile, we update all base
>     packages as necessary. Finally, after a certain grace period (I'd
>     suggest a month or two at least), we can turn off BuildAsNobody
>     globally. Some packages will still break, but at least this way we
>     give maintainers a fair chance to fix their act. As opposed to
>     forcing them to fix their packages IMMEDIATELY after the release
>     or else potentially getting tons of user complaints for something
>     that might not even be avoidable from their side. In addition,
>     this approach might reduce the pain for our users a bit, too... ;).
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I agree that it would be a good idea to have a transition period 
> during which package maintainers can add "BuildAsNobody: false" as 
> needed before releasing a version of fink which builds as nobody by 
> default. As you say, this would mean modifying the validator and 
> notifying fink-devel well in advance of the change.
>
> However, I don't see the point of going through a stage where 
> BuildAsNobody is off by default, but opt-in at the package level. It 
> wouldn't really lead to more packages getting tested because 
> maintainers already have the ability to test their packages with the 
> --build-as-nobody flag. The poorly maintained packages still won't get 
> tested until the default is switched. That's why it seems like a good 
> idea to have BuildAsNobody the default in master: it makes it more 
> likely that problematic packages will be first noticed by someone who 
> recognizes the problem rather than a random user.
>
> Dustin
>
>
I'd argue that we've been in the transition period since 
--build-as-nobody was established. :-)  We've been identifying packages 
that don't build as nobody and fixing those that can all along, but 
haven't had a .info file field name to mark them.

Since fink ignores .info file fields it doesn't recognize (at least for 
booleans), maintainers can mark their appropriate packages with 
"BuildAsNobody: false" right now.

-- 
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
http://finkakh.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/got-job/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2

_______________________________________________
fink-core mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core