On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:39:54AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_ > > > package out there by hand on _every_ architecture ? > > > > > > Have you seriously thought about what you are proposing here ? > > > > What are you talking about? I'm not the one proposing anything. > > > > The proposal was "All packages should be built in an artificial > > environment of this form". I have pointed out that this is a > > braindamaged idea. > > Autobuilders already build packages "in an artificial" > environment" for every architecture except the one the > maintainer used for uploading. > > Surely making every package consistant on every architecture > should be a goal for Debian? > > Sure, ideally the package should build exactly the same way where > ever it is built, but differences can emerge with out being obvious, > for instance if a package detects an extra library > is installed on the maintainers machine and automatically uses it > without the maintainer being aware of what is happening > (this happened with early versions of Heimdal and libhesiod0 in fact). So, we have two scenarios. Let the package be broken in such a way that it builds differently on different platforms. a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical environment. All packages in the archive function as expected. b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it breaks; when this happens the bug is noticed and corrected, so that the package always builds the same way. I say that (b) is vastly superior to (a). The tradeoff is temporary bugs in sid versus unnoticed bugs in a release. We'll never trap all the bugs, but going out of your way to _not look_ cannot be a good idea. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature