Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal
On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> * Olaf van der Spek (olafvdspek@gmail.com) [050822 12:35]:
> > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > > a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
> > > remember that the new glibc/gcc blocked non-toolchain progress for
> > > months during the beginning of the sarge release cycle, and that the
> > > aftermath took months more to be sorted out. So far, etch threatens to
> > > be more of the same; in the past month we've had:
>
> > I've been wondering, why isn't the new toolchain tested and the
> > resulting errors fixed before it's uploaded to unstable or made the
> > default?
>
> Because apparently nobody does. To really find out (some of) the
> toolchain bugs, you need to compile the whole archive with the new
> toolchain. And, BTW, the new toolchain was available in experimental for
> ages. Gcc 4.0 was also uploaded quite some time to unstable before it
> was made the default.
I understand most maintainers don't try the new toolchain themselves,
but wouldn't it be possible for someone else to build the entire
archive (or parts of it by multiple people) and (automatically) report
bugs?
Reply to: