Andrew Suffield dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:12:22PM +0100]: > 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. I completely agree with you. A natural environment has a much larger probability to introduce mistakes than an artificial one - if a mistake appears when building in a overly limited artificial environment, we can quite confidently conclude that the packager omitted something. Most (trivial) FTBFS bugs I have inspected arise from an omitted build-dependency. Many, as Sven Luther points out, are introduced because the natural environment (the maintainer's machine) has some packages that do not belong to our unstable branch and thus generate problematic (sometimes with problems too subtle to be easily found, that often arise after the package has descended into testing). I sent this idea because many people were debating if it would be a waste of autobuilder resources to restrict to source-only uploads or binary uploads with a discarded binary (which I think would be best). While writting down my idea, some extra thoughts twisted it beyond any recognition - but the basic idea stands. I would prefer not letting packages into testing which were not autobuilt. As a sidenote, I remember some months ago there was a thread about information regarding a particular developer's working environment being distributed with the packages they built - If everything were to be autobuilt, we would also get rid of this (minor, IMHO) problem. 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