Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:51:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:47PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:02:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Really, I don't really understand all the difficulty of running
> > > apt-get -b source, or pbuilder, or some such for n+1 archs as opposed
> > > to just n. With a little use of ssh keys, the whole thing should be
> > > completely automated. And I thought that's basically what the
> > > security team does, anyway. If we keep them with a useable machine
> > > (which DOES make sense as a requirement), then where is the issue?
> >
> > How often this works, however, is the problem. The source may not
> > build cleanly everywhere. Some dependency may be broken, or not
> > install properly in the build daemon, or so forth.
>
> Is not this supposed to be fixed before a package ever enters testing,
> let alone stable?
Things evolve. It may have built against an earlier version, for
instance.
> OK. Assuming that they are open to that. I have no reason to assume
> either way, I guess.
I think I can safely assure you that we are :-)
> > I think what this is crying out for is a second testing setup, covering
>
> Perhaps, but then why not just use the existing testing setup?
Because, as has been explained several times, it doesn't scale. This
allows the sub-testing to be coordinated separately. Managed
separately. Run on a separate archive even.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply to: