[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 Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 12:24:11PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I believe build daemons should ideally compile against "the most stable
> development packages which produce right dependencies for sarge".

YM sid, here, by the looks.

> If we had a way to do this, it would be worth to consider doing it, at least
> in the final stages of a freeze, when testing is near to be released.

You'd need to have some clever hackery involving the shlibs to work
out when you should do it, let alone getting the buildds to produce
a chroot constructed from three different suites. It'd also mean that
essentially nothing would ever be autobuilt with the new glibc's until
we did a release, which would seem a bit risky, for non-i386 arches.

You could setup a "test" buildd or 11, which just tries compiling packages
and file bugs when they fail, to mitigate that. That'd be useful anyway,
but a lot of effort, and not really particularly automatable (you don't
ever want to file bugs automatically -- at a minimum you need to work
out whether it's the package that's broken, the build system, or the

It'd be nifty, dunno if it's worth all the extra complexity and
dependencies.  (At the moment, we can live without a "test" buildd
suite quite happily, so if one's put together, then maintained poorly,
it doesn't matter. With this, testing and unstable can both go to hell
fairly easily without that being maintained)


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.''

Reply to: