Paul Hampson dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:19:53PM +1000]: > 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. Yes, part of my reasoning was done while writing the message :-) I know this seems to solve nothing, although I insist it does - It would require, yes, more autobuilder time. It would noticeably speed up packages entering testing. I know, this would require -as you say- tracking dependencies and probably auto-rebuilding versions that are already in Testing when newer versions of their dependencies enter Testing, and breakage can occur along the road, but I think it would be a worthy idea - If we can spare the extra building time it will require, specially on slow architectures. Or (although I understand some of the concerns against it) autobuilding using cross-compilers. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.cx - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature