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

Re: Building against testing [was Re: "Recompile with libc6 from testing" <-- doesn't help i think!]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 07:03:42PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 12:23:32PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry for arriving to the party late, but I take an extreme exception to 
> >>this.  Please compile *all* packages against testing if possible.  The 
> >
> >No, don't.
> Please, do ...
> >>Maybe the problem lies more in the buildd system (which I am also not so 
> >>familiar with).  Debian uploads source packages, and these get rebuilt 
> >>by the buildds, correct?  If so, perhaps it would be better to make them 
> >>more intelligent -- if they can buildd cleanly against testing, they 
> >>should do that first.  If there are problems, they try unstable.  Either 
> >>way, the package goes into unstable, but if it's compiled against 
> >>testing, there are obviously no dependencies needed from unstable so 
> >>there's no need to be held up by a dependency on a new library rev 
> >>(which may be incremented weekly, keeping the otherwise working package 
> >>in unstable in perpetuity).
> >
> >It's not a "problem", it's a design.  Think about it.  I upload a new
> >package that builds against the version in testing - but does NOT build
> >against the version in unstable.  A dozen buildds get it and build it
> >and it goes into testing.  But it's already unbuildable in unstable and
> >has been since before I uploaded it.
> At your request, I have given this more thought.  At first what you said 
> made sense, but upon scrutinization, it's a red herring.  My initial 
> points, since edited out, stated:
> *) Developers should run unstable
> *) Builds should be done against testing
> *) Uploads are always into unstable
> Now, given your example (you said there are others; I'm initerested to 
> hear them), here is basically what you said [paraphrased]:
> "But it we compile against testing to make testing more 
> (stable/up-to-date), then unstable may become unstable."

Not unstable - unbuildable.

> Sounds rather self-evident, doesn't it?
> Further, we have to take into account my first and last points: 
> Firstly, if the developer is running unstable, it should be a reasonable 
> assumption that they have done /some/ semblance of testing (against 
> unstable, by definition) before uploading it.  Secondly, you make it 
> sound as though the upload would go directly into testing, which is 
> certainly not what I had said - uploads would go unto unstable, where 
> they could be further tested before migrating into testing, free of 
> dependencies in unstable (because it compiled against testing).  Of 
> course this is not foolproof (to reiterate) but perhaps better than what 
> we have now.

You're missing something.  Library packages are in unstable.  They need
to go into testing.  "Testing", right?  They need to be _tested_ first. 
If new applications don't link against the new versions, in many cases,
they will silently make it to testing without ever being tested.

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Reply to: