Re: A question about update-excuses (was Re: testing is broken)
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 09:28:27PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 06:51:23PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >
> >> The majority of failures are missing or broken build-depends.
> >
> >If so, why not alleviate the backlog by loading up the buildd
> >machines with a fuller set of -dev packages?
>
> Yeah, that would help in a lot of cases. But if we're going to do that,
> missing build-depends will never get noticed, and we might as well just throw
> in the towel and make those packages build-essential.
No, that doesn't follow.
You can either (a) load up the buildd machines for a limited period of time
(until they 'catch up') and then start checking build-deps properly again,
or (b) have one buildd machine (say, the i386 one) do full checking of
build-deps, and the rest can be lax. There are probably other options.
I agree that missing build-deps are a nuisance and all, but if they are
the main thing holding back testing, then we ought to consider options
to make testing useful again.
-Steve
Reply to: