On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 08:03:11PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:00:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:02:06AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > I say that failing to function when built in anything but a particular > > > > artificial environment is a serious bug in a source package. > > > > > > The environment on the workstation of any random developer is no less > > > artificial than of the autobuilders. The latter, however, is consistent, > > > reproducible, and designed to minimize variables. > > > > And the whole point is that this is not desireable. > > > > Why has nobody been paying attention? > > I think you have now posted at least a couple of messages which successfully > explain your point. Like the one at the start of the thread? > If we keep the status quo as you suggest, we will be hit by the occasional > case where something goes wrong on autobuilt packages because the maintainer > accidentally did something "special" (which could even be part of Debian) on > his machine when building. And we should notice that long before releasing and fix it. It's not like nobody uses the non-i386 architectures. > We also get the "HTF did this ever build at all?" > bugs. IME, those occur just as often on the buildds. I've seen serveral bugs which should have prevented the package from building at all, and yet it had been built by all the buildds several times. [The rest of your mail depended on these two points being true, so I'll skip it] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature