[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Source only uploads?

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Andrew Suffield dijo [Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:57:20AM +0100]:
> > So, we have two scenarios. Let the package be broken in such a way
> > that it builds differently on different platforms.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > I say that (b) is vastly superior to (a). The tradeoff is temporary
> > bugs in sid versus unnoticed bugs in a release. We'll never trap all
> > the bugs, but going out of your way to _not look_ cannot be a good
> > idea.
> I would prefer (a) over (b) - Yes, it breaks more, but that is exactly
> what we want: We want broken packages to appear as seldom as possible
> in the archive.

Uhh... what? That didn't make any sense. "it breaks more, but that is
exactly what we want: ..." in particular.

You seem to have gotten your goals really twisted here. The goal, as I
see it, is to produce the best packages that we realistically are able
to. Not to produce a superficially working release.

Strictly as stated, your goal is accurate, but as implied, it is
not. You are implying that this applies only to binary packages.

I say that failing to function when built in anything but a particular
artificial environment is a serious bug in a source package.

Any action whose effect is to avoid noticing these bugs cannot be a
good idea.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: