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