Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: >> Are you saying that what is right now in wip/rust is, more or >> less exactly, something you believe is likely safe to update >> lang/rust? In other words, is testing wip/rust valid in terms >> of checking the proposed update? > > I've tested that I get a working firefox out of using what's in > wip/rust right now on amd64-current with -current pkgsrc, so in > that sense "yes". Thanks. I realize we might find troubles, and was trying to ask if it you think we are ready to just test and then update. > I've started the activity to build firefox on i386 (8.0 and 9.2), > but it's taking a while since these builds are not done with an > empty pkg installation, and doing the updates creates a need to > babysit the build. ok. I have started building wip/rust on 9-stable/amd64 and then will make replace firefox. It's an interesting question about much 8/i386 matters. We haven't yet decided that it doesn't, but it might be that most people think it's just too troubled in general. > Then it's a matter of which firefox builds we allow to act as a > blocker, either because of "unknown" or "failed" build status. Pretty much the notion has been that if it was working before a rust update, it should work afterwards. That gets hard to figure out, and I'd say that if there's no binary package for firefox from the last quarterly builds, then we don't need to worry too much. But really once there are test results on the table, we can see what everybody thinks; there is no absolute right and wrong here. The "PMC approval" notion is meant to move deciding to do an update from one person who wants to update to a group consensus that it's wise, more than anything else.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature