[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 11:09:25PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> However, I 
> will take exception to your statement that unstable is necessarily a 
> venue for testing.  I would think that that is what 'testing' is for. 

Kind-of. The distinction is that first pass "is this completely screwed?"
testing needs to be done while the package is in unstable (ideally before
the package is uploaded, but experience shows we're just not able to
achieve that), whereas more regular "hey, this feature doesn't work as
documented" or "hey, this obscure combination of things doesn't work
as it should" testing is meant to be done while the package is in the
testing distro.

Basically, the root causes of the delays that would be avoided by building
against testing are broken packages that need to be fixed. Fixing them
isn't busy-work, or make work, it's useful and needs to be done in
its own right. By contrast, I'm fairly confident that building against
testing would likewise introduce a bunch of delays (probably fewer), but
that working around them would involve introducing temporary hacks that
need to be taken out later (like rebuilding against an old version of
the library until the new version gets promoted, then rebuilding again,
at its simplest). I'd rather just accept that testing isn't as useful as
it could be, than force developers to do more work than they'd otherwise
have to do.

Joey Hess's upload frequency is still the major outstanding bug on that
score. :(


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpvMr82OlohP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: