On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:08:56PM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 02:44:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > I'd say: just go ahead. It's definitly required that a package is
> > > recompilable.
> > Uh, no, strictly speaking it's not. We're getting closer to achieving
> > that, but we haven't achieved it yet. Our (re)buildability requirements
> > are still relatively limited.
> Does that mean that FTBFS bugs found by a pbuilder run should not
> be considered release-critical?
No; we've got a few "buildability" requirements that are required, and
a few that still aren't. The aim is to work towards having them all be
guaranteed; but we don't really have enough time left over from fixing
all the things we're currently trying to guarantee to add new things.
Expecting things to autobuild correctly first time round, expecting
things to stay buildable in unstable (although maybe not building the
exactly correct thing), and having roughly the complete source code for
everything are the basic requirements we have at the moment.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature