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

Re: Source only uploads?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:49:13PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> 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 latter is the subject of this thread.

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

This is empirically false; numerous bugs aren't noticed until the
packages are subjected to real-world use.

> > > 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?

Same thing I've been saying all along. We have no idea what happens
when you rebuild the package on a real system. There's no reason to
think it'll work.

> 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.

People who make a habit of uploading packages built against things
that are not and will never be in sid, have no business being

No matter how many times people advance the "But what if the
developers are incompetent?" argument, it's not going to make any

> > > 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?

Are you attempting to assert that there are never any bugs filed that
are caused by packages being improperly built?

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: