Re: A question about update-excuses (was Re: testing is broken)
>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.
Yeah, maybe. I'm sceptical that the first option would buy much -- it would
certainly give a short-term improvement and allow more packages to go
into testing today, but they'd rapidly become outdated again as soon as we
started requiring proper build-depends. Having just one buildd do checking also
wouldn't do us much good: even one architecture falling behind will keep the
binaries out of testing, and you'd end up concentrating the burden of
reporting these bugs on the administrators of just that one autobuilder.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the maintainers don't actually use the
source dependencies directly, and they don't have any easy way to verify that
they're correct. I'd guess that something like 5-10% of the packages being
uploaded have some kind of build-depends problem. Often it takes several
iterations to get them right, and new versions of other packages can require
them to change again ("xpm4g-dev" being a prime example; I got so fed up of
filing bugs on that one that I did end up giving in and hacking the build
daemon to work around it.)