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

Re: Source only uploads?

Andrew Suffield wrote:
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.

c) The package is uploaded from the real-world environment where it works,
built on the architecture 99% of the users have. The breakage in the
other architectures' autobuilt packages is not noticed until after Sarge,
and/or when somebody does an NMU (or takes over the package) and suffers
from severe brain trauma trying to figure out how the h*ll it could have
worked _ever_.

This is the same as (b), only delayed. Still acceptable - we noticed
the bug and fixed it.

The point is that with a), it will be noticed earlier.

Nonsense. What are you talking about? With (a), it will not be noticed
*at all*. The bug will not appear until three months after the
release, when some sysadmin tries to rebuild the package on their
stable box.

Same thing for (b): the maintainer environment is no more "natural"
than the "artificial" one of buildd.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that
the buildd environment is nearest to the environment of a stable
machine, than most developpers machines.  And, at least, the buildd
environment is more easily reproductible by the users.

Whether or not the binary package that the maintainer uploads is actually
allowed into the archive has damn nearly zero impact on its usefulness for
finding build problems.

...nope, you haven't been reading this thread.

Currently, to me, it seems to have read the same thread as myself.
So, may be you should ask yourself which thread you read?


Reply to: