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

Re: Source only uploads?

Nick Phillips <nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> said:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:00:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:02:06AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > > I say that failing to function when built in anything but a particular
>> > > artificial environment is a serious bug in a source package.
>> > 
>> > The environment on the workstation of any random developer is no less
>> > artificial than of the autobuilders.  The latter, however, is consistent,
>> > reproducible, and designed to minimize variables.
>> And the whole point is that this is not desireable.
>> Why has nobody been paying attention?
> I think you have now posted at least a couple of messages which successfully
> explain your point.
> You think that having tested a package which was built in a "real-world"
> situation is critical.
> Most people who are arguing with you think that it is more important that
> the binary packages we ship are built in a know, reproducible, and consistent
> way.

More generally, correct me if I'm wrong, the goal of Debian is to ship
a _working_ operating system.
The packages shipped by Debian should be at least working with a fresh
debian installation, that contains only Debian official packages from
the appropriate distro (stable, testing, unstable), a system which
looks like the "artificial" autobuilders system.

In fact, it is wrong to say that the autobuilder system are purely
artificial: they should be the system the nearest to from the
real-world user systems it is possible to create. While, a contrario,
a developer system is likely to differ from most user system.

Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage: 		http://yeupou.coleumes.org/		|
  | Computing Homepage:		http://alberich.coleumes.org/  		|
  | Not a native english speaker:					|
  |	http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english 	|

Reply to: