Re: Source only uploads?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > > Its good for the autobuilders to check again if a package builds in a
> > > > mainly minimal environment.
> > >
> > > That's an argument for building it *once* in such an environment. It
> > > is definitely not an argument that it should only be built in such an
> > > environment, which was the point in question.
> >
> > Ok, no problem. I suppose you just volunteered to fix all the bugs
> > against my packages that fail due to broken dependency brought in by
> > using experimental packages.
>
> You have a significant number of such bugs? That's like standing up in
> a crowded room and announcing you have a highly contagious skin
> disease.
Well, i would potentially have one for every xlibs depending package i
upload. As well as all the other people who run experimental stuff on
their developer box.
> > And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_
> > package out there by hand on _every_ architecture ?
> >
> > Have you seriously thought about what you are proposing here ?
>
> What are you talking about? I'm not the one proposing anything.
Yes, you propose that we should build our packages on widely
unhomogenous systems with random non-official packages on it, some of
which may even include incompatible patches or whatever.
> The proposal was "All packages should be built in an artificial
> environment of this form". I have pointed out that this is a
> braindamaged idea.
Thanks for calling me braindamaged :)
Seriously, i perfectly understood what you are proposing, and i think
you don't realize the things involved for making such a proposal. Think
about it seriously, and you will see why your proposal is not a good
idea.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: