Re: Source only uploads?
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:53:30AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.
Ok, Andrew, what is the point. We are argumenting about something, and
you, deciding not to listen to me anymore, take it to a personal level ?
What do you have against me ? Or is it just spite because you were not
able to find an example of a case where building in an artificial
environment could break more than running on wildly different ones.
> 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
> morons.
Thanks, this is the second time you have been insulting me personaly, if
i am not mistaken, i guess your parent didn't learn you to stay polite.
> > 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.
Fine, give me one example of something that may break. You upto now
failed to do so, and you have fallen back to resort to insults instead
of examples and reasoned arguments.
> > 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.
Sure, do you remember which version of which packages where on your
workstation when you built a random package some 3 weeks ago, or
something such ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: