Re: Source only uploads?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:24:25AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > - Architecture: all packages would not get built
> > >
> > > Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
> > > autobuilders building the arch: all stuff.
> >
> > Feel free to set up one.
>
> I feel like I am missing something here. Could you explain
> "Architecture: all packages would not get built"? Is the problem with
> binary arch independent packages?
No, when you upload a multi-"binary" package, and you have some which
are binary : all, and others that are binary: any. The autobuilders will
only build the arch-dependent stuff, and nobody build the arch: all
packages. Usually when you upload, you upload both your arch's
arch-dependent and the arch-independent packages.
> > > The reason why source only uploads (or binary uploads where the binary
> > > part is ignored) are good, is that they limit the errors that may be
> > > introduced by the DD build environment, which may be a bit more than
> > > just sid. Like when you have XFree86 4.3.0 experimental packages
> > > installed for example.
> >
> > The reason why source only uploads are bad, is that they encourage bad
> > practice such as people not checking the build. By requiring at least
> > one binary package, we ensure the package can at least be built. That's
> > a good thing, since it saves time otherwise wasted on packages failing
> > to build because the maintainer didn't even bother to test.
> >
> > I have less problems with the second part of your suggestion ("binary
> > uploads where the binary part is ignored"), as long as it's not so
> > time-consuming that becomes a problem (which I'm afraid is likely to be
> > the case).
>
> "binary uploads where the binary part is ignored" sounds very good. I
> don't expect problems related to "time-consuming" since most binary
> uploads are for x86 these days and x86 autobuilder cpu time should not
> be very hard to find.
x86 or powerpc. Maybe i will be able to provide a 1GHz G4 autobuilder in
a few weeks or so, not sure though. It would probably need hosting though.
> > > And if we are going to use experimental more and more, like aj
> > > suggested, this is going to be more and more of a problem in the future.
> >
> > Since experimental isn't autobuilt, I fail to see your point.
>
> It believe he means that dd are more likely to have experimental
> packages installed on their systems and thus upload broken binary
> packages.
Yep, that is what i meant.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: