On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:21:55PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > This is based on the assumption that a given buildd has a better > > chance of being "valid" than the maintainer's workstation. I see no > > reason to believe that. > > No, it is based on the assumption that a buildd will only install things > listed in the Build-Depends, which means it will catch stuff that only > builds on the maintainers workstation because they aren't building > inside a chroot and are being sloppy - one of the main things they catch > for binary-arch targets, today. People seem to be doing quite well enough at catching those already. As you're so fond of saying, if they weren't then we wouldn't be having this conversation (note how meaningless that is?). > In fact, the buildd is presumed to be valid - must be - because we're > using it for every architecture not uploaded. Invalid buildds are, as > far as I have observed, caught fairly rapidly, and taken out of the pool > until fixed (barring toolchain failures which only affect a few > packages, or the like). Same thing applies to maintainer workstations. > A maintainer's workstation cannot be presumed to be valid, because we > regularly demonstrate that this isn't the case. If we could presume it > was valid, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Strange, I thought we actually managed to upload working packages most of the time. Are you attempting to suggest that we don't? > If you think the buildds are invalid, perhaps you should take the matter up > with the people running them, and so they can try to fix whatever problems > you are seeing? Right back at you. You can swap "maintainer workstation" and "buildd" in your last mail and still have it about as meaningful, which should be a hint that you're pursuing a blind alley. Note that it is much _more_ important for a maintainer workstation (where all the actually important stuff happens) to be working than it is for a buildd (which is largely automated, and thusly can be easily duplicated, replaced, or re-done). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpvsx9FgFKcd.pgp
Description: PGP signature