On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:19:10PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > >>I understand your concern that a package must be able to built on > >>any Debian environment as long as the architecture is support and the > >>build-deps are respected, but I find that an additional request that > >>the package be able to build in pbuilder add to the quality of the > >>release. > > > >At no point have I suggested that it should not have to build in an > >artificial environment. What are you talking about? > > I'm talking about ENSURING that the package is able to build in such > REPRODUCTIBLE environment and give consistent results. I remember > some packages which are even able to give a consistent source package > across rebuilds, which is pretty lame, IMHO. So how is that at all relevant? In no sense does it require source-only uploads; this is empirically demonstrated by the fact that we pretty much ensure this already (more precisely, we pretty reliably detect when it is not the case). > >>I don't see how the current process help you on this? Any maintainer > >>can be lazy, and upload half-compiled package. There is many way to > >>make a package where even the debian/rules file doesn't run. If the > >>package is a binary-all, it will not even be notice! > > > >If the maintainer is an incompetent moron, sure. But we generally > >assume maintainers don't do stupid things like this. > > Sorry, but I think error is human. <snip description of arbitrary bug> This would be detected by anybody that tries to build the package. No problems here. > >For binary-all packages, people do on occasion attempt to rebuild them > >to trap this sort of problem. It hasn't yet been automated, but it > >could be. > > It's the "people" and "on occasion" that tickle me here. Why not > replace it with "Debian" and "always" instead? There's no difference. That is the nature of Debian. Things get done when somebody decides to do them. > >With the current process, most packages are built in a real-world > >environment and then used in that environment by a significant number > >of people, over a significant period of time. This gives us a better > >than average chance of noticing any problems. It's not perfect, but > >it's probably the best we're going to get. > > I really fail to get your point: you said that a good maintainer will > always try to make it's package compile in a diversed environment and > that allowing source only upload will discourage such practice? No. I'm saying that's what happens. No "would/could/should". It *does*. Most of the packages which are used by most users are built in variable, real-world environments. Over an extended period of time, we are very likely to run into any problems that may be present. > Adding the capacity of source-only upload will just help him > ensure that his package can also be built into a "artificial" but > reproductible environment, which add to the QA of the package. Entirely false. It would add nothing in this regard. Why on earth would it? In no manner does a binary upload prevent you from testing the package to see if it builds in some other environment. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature