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

Re: suggested buildd service

On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:03:48PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > What would be the benefit of having a buildd that sends build logs to
> > the package maintainer that we don't have with any of the currently
> > existing systems?
> - you can test build one architecture without bothering the others
>   (and without setting the source to Arch: <arch> temporarily)
>   e.g. to see if a patch for an arch specific bug compiles

Well, you can do that with project machines, too. I don't see that as a

> - you get exactly the buildd behaviour

You get that by setting up your own buildd network or by uploading to
experimental, too.

Also, I'm not sure at all that testing uploads by using buildd (and
buildd alone) is a good idea. I hope you're not advocating that...

> - you don't need root to install Build-Depends for the chroot for you
>   (and that is the important one imho)

That would indeed be a benefit; but, again, one that is available from
regular and experimental buildd environments, too. Add to that the fact
that, IME, DSA is usually pretty fast to install build-dependencies on
request, and I'm not so sure this is still such an important benefit...

> - the build does not fill the buildd admins mailbox or buildd.d.o

There's no harm in that; most buildd logs aren't that large.

> - you can build packages that aren't normaly autobuild (if the buildd
>   makes the debs available, encrypted witht the DDs key or so)

I don't see why that would be a _benefit_.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Reply to: