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

On 4/14/2012 9:58 AM, Dustin Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Max Horn<[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.

To add, my last buildworld ran --build-as-nobody first and if the 
package failed, it would then try again as root. So at least 
10.5/unstable as of 2010-08-14 has been tested with --b-a-n.

The results of that are here: 
<http://www.snaggledworks.com/fink/buildworld/2010-08-14/nobody/>.  The 
vast majority of those packages have been fixed to use --b-a-n in the 18 
months since. And I would presume that most new packages since have been 
tested with --b-a-n (at least if they came from the tracker via me), as 
well as those migrated in the transition to stable.

Hanspeter

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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