On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:52:08AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:18:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > No, of course it doesn't. It guarantees that it built once on one
> > architecture with one set of debs installed. Which is better than nothing,
> > and, really, all you can reasonably ask a maintainer to demonstrate.
> I fail to see how this is better than nothing. Actually I dont see anythign
> wrong with letting the auto builders figure out that it wont build.
We have about five people who process auto builder logs; we have some
thousand odd people who upload packages. It's more efficient for the
latter group to be the one to notice problems wherever possible.
> The
> advantage is a more consistent build dependency and far less need for trust
> in opaque binary uploads.
Autobuilder uploads are entirely opaque too, and have their own
risks. There really is no significant difference on this score.
If you want to make your uploads more consistent, use pbuilder or similar.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West''
-- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003
Attachment:
pgpkyt8z398rR.pgp
Description: PGP signature