Re: Removal of wanna-build from sbuild
On 2011-03-10, Bernd Zeimetz <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 06:56 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2011-03-10, Hector Oron <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I was planning to start using a wanna-build instance, but i was not
>>> sure which one to use.
>>> As I have not yet started to use any of them I have no real objection
>>> for its removal, on the other hand I would not mind to try to merge
>>> current wb used on buildd with the one shipped in sbuild. Just let me
>>> know your preferences.
>> The two codebases don't have much in common, given that the sbuild one was
>> heavily refactored.
> So why the hell are these two branches not merged and developed by a team?
Volunteer time is limited and the focus of the wanna-build team is a different
one than providing packages, at least at the moment. (Especially as it's
hard to produce something that works equally well as a package and as a
central installation that's updated differently.) There's also no benefit
in moving the central wanna-build to a refactored code base that has less
features and fixes.
buildd in unstable was severely broken for ages, because the packages weren't
at all tested after heavy refactorings (and still aren't because the
maintainer doesn't have a test setup). wanna-build will have suffered the same
fate. For buildd-0.61.0 the situation seems to be a bit better, I only needed
some few hours instead of days to get it working again. buildd *is* living
in the same repository as sbuild, though. It's just wanna-build that's
That said, if you want to step up in maintaining a hellish Perl codebase,
feel free to send patches.