On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 09:38:54PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 20:57, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Secondly, in the current system, if it "doesn't build", then the > > maintainer would not be able to upload the package at all, because > > their build of it would fail. Source-only uploads would _remove_ this > > check, thereby making FTBFS issues more common. They certainly > > wouldn't prevent any problems that currently happen. > > > > Thirdly, this idea demonstrates a lack of understanding of what causes > > FTBFS bugs. It is emphatically _not_ the case that every package can > > be categorised as "does build" or "doesn't build". > > What causes FTBFS bugs now: > 1. Bad Build-Depends. These are handled by the current system - they're trapped on the buildd. > 2. Broken code that doesn't port (either to another architecture, to > something that's not the maintainer's home directory, whatever). And so are these. > All of 1 and many of 2 would be solved by binaryless uploads. A new > type, "maintainer never tried to build package ever (and so debian/rules > has a syntax error or debian/control has a bad version or whatever)" > would be introduced - but such packages would be blocked from entering > the archive anyway. But none of this is new. These things are already handled by the system we currently have in place. What you are proposing to do is essentially to require that a package has built on all architectures before installing it into the archive. We have that already: it's called "testing". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpbOPxFMv6cv.pgp
Description: PGP signature