Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Gentoo's QA weakness: developers

Filed under
Gentoo

The main weakness in Gentoo’s Quality Assurance is developers not giving a shit about quality.

Let me try to explain: there are many problems with Gentoo’s QA team, like the lack of proper coordination most of the time, the lack of a real Gentoo-based effort for continuous integration testing (the tinderboxes are mostly direct pet projects of the people running them, which means for the QA standpoint Patrick and me), and the lack of an absolute rulebook of “dos ad don’ts” for what concerns ebuilds.

Of the few accepted rules, there are a few that I’m trying to enforce via the tinderbox and by opening bugs, one of these is installing documentation in the /usr/share/doc/${PF} path (where ${PF} is the full name and version of the package, including the revision number — yes I know that it would have been better to use ${CATEGORY}/${PF} but let’s not go there for now). To do so you either use the Portage-provided dodoc and dohtml helpers, or you have to tell the configure script or the install makefiles to change the directory they install their documentation into; the defaults are never right because at the worst case they don’t take the version into consideration and at the best have no idea about the Gentoo-specific revision.

It doesn’t seem like a controversial rule to enforce, does it?




More in Tux Machines

Ubuntu Kylin 15.10 Beta 1 Is Out with Updated Software Center, Linux Kernel 4.1 LTS

As part of the release of Ubuntu 15.10 (Wily Werewolf) Beta 1 for opt-in flavors, the Ubuntu Kylin team had the pleasure of announcing the immediate availability for download and testing of the first Beta build of the upcoming Ubuntu Kylin 15.10 distro. Read more Also: Kubuntu Wily Beta 1

Leftovers: Ubuntu

Croatian policy encourages open source adoption

Earlier this year, Croatian political party Sustainable Development of Croatia (ORaH) published a new policy that encourages the government to pursue open source solutions, addresses the dangers of vendor lock-in, and insists on open document standards. Best of all, they did it the open source way. Read more

Is Office 365 cheaper than OpenOffice and open source?

Indeed, Microsoft's marketing team published a press release recently saying Office 365 is about 80% cheaper compared to the open source office suite, OpenOffice - with the figures stemming from reports in Italy and the City Council of Pesaro. The Redmond giant claims that to roll out Open Office, Pesaro incurred a one off cost of about €300,000 and had lots of problems with document formatting. But equally how would you convince a public sector organisation to migrate to your cloud services instead of using 'expensive' open source software? The obvious way would be to present a case study from a similar organisation together with a well written report commissioned to an "independent" consultancy firm. At this point your future customer has all the data and justifications required to sign on the dotted line. And some journalists are now presenting this case as fact of Microsoft Office 365 being 80% more economical than open source alternatives. I would argue that this is an isolated case and the PR efforts by big technology vendors, like many other methods, are being used to trick private and public organisations into signing contracts based on data or claims that may be not completely true. Read more