On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:51:20AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical > > environment. All packages in the archive function as expected. > > > > b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it > > breaks; when this happens the bug is noticed and corrected, so that the > > package always builds the same way. > > c) The package is uploaded from the real-world environment where it works, > built on the architecture 99% of the users have. The breakage in the > other architectures' autobuilt packages is not noticed until after Sarge, > and/or when somebody does an NMU (or takes over the package) and suffers > from severe brain trauma trying to figure out how the h*ll it could have > worked _ever_. This is the same as (b), only delayed. Still acceptable - we noticed the bug and fixed it. > > I say that (b) is vastly superior to (a). > > I say that (a) and (b) have different trade-offs. However, you can't have > (b) without also risking (c). Since (c) is really not a nice thing to > happen, IMHO we should default to (a) -- consistency is good. Sounds like the perfect getting in the way of the good; the end result sucks. Papering over these issues is *not the answer*. Find them and fix them, it's not hard. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature