Re: FTBFS: architecture all packages
Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:39:00AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > I also like the idea of rebuilding packages with newer versions of
> > their build-depends (or tool-chain) when a buildd is idle. That too
> > would require a more automatic handling of maybe-successfull builds
> > that won't be uploaded.
>
> That would presumably need an additional version number field "build
> version" or similar, or you'd have 2 debs with identical version which
> are different.
My suggestion was more to just build them and report that it still
builds. Don't upload the rebuilds or packages would never get into
testing.
> Perhaps maintainers should upload only binaries with version
> upstreamv-debv-0 and buildds could then upload upstreamv-debv-buildv
> with buildv starting at 1. This would also allow the maintainer to
> immediately provide binaries for any architectures they wish as is
> possible at the moment, but the buildds for these arches would try to
> build the packages again anyway. You could even still require a -0
> binary be uploaded as is currently the case to be sure that the
> maintainer has built the package.
Requiring a binary to be uploaded might be a way to force DDs to
testbuild packages. But adding another version field is a bit
wastefull. We already have some amazingly long versions in debian
(ever looked at kernel images). The uploaded binary could be thrown
awy and a buildds version could be used. But then again, why force the
binary upload if its useless?
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: