On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > I think a third (or, after reading some replies to this same mail, > fourth, fifth or nth) way could be used: Binary packages enter Sid as > usual. Now, after the 10-day period, when they are ready to enter > Testing, they are autobuilt. Only the autobuilt version hits Testing. > > This will help us reduce the load on autobuilders, as not every > probably-buggy version will be autobuilt. It will also help maintain > Testing's quality/stability, as all packages entering it will have > proof of at least being buildable. Of course, for human developers, > this might mean a bit of extra work, finding out why the heck did it > not compile as planned when entering Testing, as we will have to check > for specific versions and probably work in chroots or similar > environments (which we already sometimes need)... But testing will be > cleaner, which is a Good Thing. > > This will also solve one additional thing: many packages have not hit > Testing (or have been held for too long) because one of their > dependencies is stuck in Unstable. If packages that prove that _by > themselves_ introduce no new bugs are allowed into testing, this will > be less of an issue. (Now that... Well, yes, some important libraries > such as glibc will have to trigger myriads of autobuilds when they > finally enter Testing, in order to ensure that things are still OK - > This seems a bit scary, but at least interesting ;-) ) Oh, now we've gotten the "build packages against Testing" debate intermingled with the "autobuild everything" debate? At least, that's how I read that last paragraph... I was _expecting_ (based on the rest of the email) that you meant building against unstable as of the testing-candidate time to pick up newer dependancies having been uploaded in the meantime (which I can understand might help with packages keeping newer dependancies out of testing) However, I think that would both load the autobuilders and delay the entire testing process, as _all_ arches would need to rebuild the package twice (unless you propose candidates become valid without being built on all architectures) and of course, the time between valid candidicy and sarge+1-ing would allow the possible skew to reoccur, solving nothing. Maybe someway of tracking dependancies and knowing when the package needs to be auto-rebuilt against a newer dependant package would help, but that seems orthogonal to _this_ discussion. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson 6th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au "If they leave no survivors, where do the stories come from?" -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature