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

Re: Source only uploads?

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:46:01PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> > 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.

Perhaps you're confusing the advocation of maintainers not having to upload
a binary at all with advocation of all packages in the archive being autobuilt?

The maintainer would still notice the bug when building on his real-world

> > What none of these
> > options achieves (although a is closer than the others), but which would be
> > "nice to have", would be to ensure that all binary packages are built with
> > the same versions of libraries etc.; this would avoid some cases of
> > arch-specific bugs.
> > 
> > Ideally maintainers would build their packages for upload in a "clean"
> > unstable environment, which would have pretty much the same effect as
> > autobuilding for all arches, but this is a pipedream.
> I don't think you've been reading this thread.
> That's not "nice". That's very bad.

I don't think we're following each other here. What's bad about packages
in the archive being built with consistent versions of libraries, having
consistent versioned depends, and consistent library-dependent bugs?

The point of the second paragraph was that packages which are being built
for the archive should be built in an environment which is guaranteed not
to contain weird shit that is not (and is never going to be) part of the
release. This means either an autobuild or a build in a "clean" environment
on the maintainer's system.

> > 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.

"Oh yes I have..."

Seriously though, if the maintainer has successfully built and used a binary,
how the hell do you think that that binary getting into the archive is going
to help find build problems?



Reply to: