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.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer