Re: list what's in the NEW queue?
On Friday 04 February 2005 15:02, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Frederik Dannemare wrote:
> > I surely hope they would still do so. Another option could simply
> > be to proceed with the current way of uploading - but then let the
> > buildd rebuild the uploaded binary. Or is that somehow not
> > feasible?
> Actually, requiring a binary upload _plus_ rebuilding it would be
yes, that would be the way to do it, IMO.
> it allows to compare the packages and warn if the results
> are too different. (It's a warning, not an error, because version
> skew of build-deps and build-essential packages can introduce some
> > As of right now it is troublesome to build e.g. gl stuff as a
> > maintainer if you are using the nvidia drivers on your system. I'm
> > sure there are many, many other scenarios to choose from.
> Always build packages for uploads in a clean environment (a fresh
> chroot if nothing else is available).
I absolutely agree. But it still doesn't have to be 100% problem-free
(letting buildd build all packages on all archs for distribution would
still be preferred, IMO).
For instance, the issue with nvidia and building gl apps I mentioned: I
have a sid chroot (debootstrap) on my sarge desktop machine which uses
the nvidia driver. Trying to start X in the chroot with the normal nv
driver failed due to nvidia already being loaded on that machine (I
forget what the exact errors were - it's a while ago now). Thus, in
order to have a useable X in my chroot (I need it for various reasons),
I had to install and use the nvidia driver there as well, which in turn
can case the aforementioned problems when building gl packages for
distribution. I'm not saying I cannot find work-arounds - just that
having buildd (re)building everything would still be preferred (less
worries for maintainers).
Frederik Dannemare | mailto:email@example.com
http://frederik.dannemare.net | http://www.linuxworlddomination.dk