Re: First pass all buildds before entering unstable
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:48:10AM +0100, Michael Piefel wrote:
> Am 19.11.03 um 07:42:18 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > After each buildd was able to build a package the whole
> > set with all architectures enters unstable at once.
I like the idea.
> Yeah, cool. That would get rid of many buggy packages. And many clean
> ones. Some buildd are horribly behind time. No offence meant, it's not
> necessarily sloppy maintainers, rather it's slow computers and extremely
> complex packages.
I don't think the speed of some of our buildd would be the point. Sooner or
later the new packages will be compiled on our buildd: better before entering
Debian than after and..
> Take workrave, for instance. Perfectly stable, as far as I can tell. Not
> built recently on m68k (because of libgnomeuimm2.0-dev), not built on
> alpha for a very long time (same reason). It's not in testing, which is
> bad enough, with your idea only ancient versions would be in unstable.
I think this is not what Andreas ment: I suppose he was trying to drop FTBFS
bugs for those new packages missing correct Build-* fields. Packages that
cannot be built because of correct source fields but missing dependencies,
should not receive bugs (AFAICT)
> Don't get me wrong. I actually quite like the thought. It just won't
> work. Perhaps limit it to "when it's built for i386, powerpc, hppa and
> arm". (That's were I got all my architecture-dependent bugs from, and
> they are all quite current.)
IMHO it would indeed work, if only we consider meaningful buildd reports (for
what is our purpose).
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they
local LANG="it_IT@euro" | don't depend on the language.