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

Re: Source only uploads?

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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

Be very wary of listening to Sven Luther. His comments are frequently
disconnected from reality.

This isn't a common cause of problems _at all_. It's downright
rare. If it were common, there might be more sympathy for source-only
uploads, but as it stands, most maintainers are *not* incompetent

> 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.

I can't see how you can say this while "agreeing" with me. If we only
put artificially built packages in testing, then we are *not* testing
packages built in a real-world environment, so we have no real idea
how well they work.

> 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.

Amusingly, the original objective was to gather the information from
buildds, since the maintainer knows what is on their own workstation.

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: