[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I need build access to a Sarge chroot for alpha

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:46:18AM -0600, Robin Verduijn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:10:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If you are not a buildd maintainer, you should not be uploading binary
> > packages to the archive that you have not tested.  This is triply true of
> > the testing-proposed-updates queue, which gets practically zero real-world
> > testing by users before being committed to testing.

> So there is nothing I can (or should) do to help kvirc get out of t-p-u
> into testing? Will it start being picked up by autobuildds at some
> point and still be able to make it into testing? The conclusion I draw
> from your email is that t-p-u never really gets the testing it should
> since packages in t-p-u will always get in through the backdoor, so to
> speak.

t-p-u gets minimal user testing; this means the burden is on uploaders and
the release team to ensure the correctness of the packages added this way.

It is generally assumed that the buildd environments will upload correct
(which is to say, consistent) packages.  No such guarantees are possible
with hand-built packages; instead, we trust that hand-built packages have
been tested by the uploader.  If this is *not* the case, there are no other
safeguards against broken binary packages making it to testing by this route.
So if anything, uploading untested binaries to t-p-u is likely to mean more
work for the maintainer and the release team, in order to fix the problems a
broken package would cause.

> > kvirc is not the only package with RC issues in sarge; indeed, most of the
> > core KDE packages are also afflicted with security bugs in testing right
> > now.  This is not a problem to be addressed with one-off hand builds of
> > packages -- the release isn't going anywhere anyway until we have known good
> > autobuilders for sarge, so there's really no reason to fuss over packages
> > in t-p-u until those autobuilders are available (and then it should be no
> > fuss at all).

> Fair enough, though. I'll leave kvirc as it is (in t-p-u). What with a
> lot of release-is-imminent emails I was getting worried that the RC bugs
> against kvirc in Sarge might lead to its removal even though a suitable
> candidate has already been in t-p-u for ages, so I was trying to be
> proactive and help it along.

Rather, the message over the past few months has been "release-not-moving",
on account of t-p-u and testing-security being unusable.  The release team
is well aware of the special circumstances of KDE packages here, nothing's
getting removed prematurely.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: