On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:11:28AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:08:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Sure, sure. > > > > Just give me one real world reason why it is not good to build in an > > artificial environment like you call it (either pbuilder or an > > autobuilder) and i will go away, as you say. > > Yes, please do. I've been following this thread with interest, because I > have always found it inconsistent that usually $(DEBIAN_ARCHITECTURES) - 1 > were built by the buildds, but the binary package the maintainer uploads > was built in a completely heterogenous environment to the rest. > > I would have thought for the sake of consistency, it would be best if > binary packages for all $(DEBIAN_ARCHITECTURES) were built the same way. > > For the same reason, I would have thought an unstable pbuilder chroot > would provide a higher degree of consistency for the one binary package > the maintainer uploads now, than to build the package in the significantly > more random environment of the developer's development machine? (Unless > he/she dedicates a machine to tracking unstable for no other purpose than > to build packages). > > Forgive me, I am relatively new, so I may be missing the obvious... Read my earlier mails in the thread. I already covered this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature