Re: Using buildds only (was: Results of the meeting...)
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
> > (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
> > packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than)
> > a source upload. If a DD uploads a broken package, he should be told
> > so, and we should aim to help him do it better the next time (that's
> > what we do in Ubuntu and it works very well).
> I think this same argument can be used in favour of binary uploads.
> Trust the developer to keep their machine up to date and build working
> packages, and tell them when they make a mistake.
I did not say that source uploads would make a DD more or less
conscious about their uploads (I don't think so). I just said that
source uploads are more convenient for the DD, cleaner design-wise,
and avoid dependency and build chain breakage.
> I've always found my mistakes are caught by the other buildds.
> I don't remember ever uploading a broken i386 deb and source that
> produced working debs on other architectures.
I totally agree.
> There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
> enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
> by analysing the packages files for different architectures or similar.
The clean way to ensure this is to build them in a clean-room
environment in the first place. It would be an unnecessary effort to
implement more sanity checking in katie, and it is computationally
impossible to check for additional/missing features in libary code.
Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntulinux.org
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org