Re: Debian built from non-Debian sources
Jonas wrote:
>Quoting Steve McIntyre (2017-07-17 02:00:25)
>
>> But a *lot* of the infrastructure we use to run Debian is not exactly
>> what's been packaged, as already mentioned. Look at dak. debian-cd,
>> live-wrapper et al *are* packaged, but we're not *necessarily* using
>> the exact code that's in the stable archive at any point. We're
>> typically using code from git on the build machines, to allow for more
>> flexibility in terms of changes to build scripts as problems arise. We
>> release things to the archive periodically as a convenience to users,
>> but serious use often necessitates using git too. This isn't going to
>> change any time soon.
>
>Sure it would be ideal to keep track of *everything* we do, including
>how we run services. But as mentioned above I distinguish between
>services and things directly affecting our product. Would you agree
>that at first limiting the task to covering only the tools directly
>affecting our product (e.g. debian-cd, liver-wrapper, libisofs) is more
>realistic than tracking also e.g. dak and Alioth?
>
>For starters, I believe they all exist as packages in Debian, it is
>"only" a matter of releasing into Debian the specific version used in
>production.
>
>...but since they seemingly are excempt from Debian Policy exactly
>because the code used is not packaged code, we cannot track this issue
>in the same way we track issues with packages. We can "ask on the
>list"...
I've corrected several of your incorrect assertions already. I'm bored
of this.
Making images often requires tweaks to the build script at/near
release time. The archive continues to be a moving target until very
close to that time. More than once we've fixed things or added
workarounds in the image generation scripts *on release day*. I'm not
going to remove the ability to do that and make working images to
pander to your ideals here.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt
Reply to: