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

Re: Using buildds only (was: Results of the meeting...)

Hi Wouter!

Wouter Verhelst [2005-08-23  1:26 +0200]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
> > > 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.
> So you suggest throwing buildd out of the window and switching to
> pbuilder, then?

Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding the buildd chroots from scratch would help to
eliminate many FTBFS bugs due to polluted chroots.

> (in case you wonder, buildd (which Ubuntu also uses) does /not/
> guarantee either up-to-dateness or clean chroots)

For the latter, see above. For the former, lagging behind by at most
one day (as the buildds do) is certainly acceptable. OTOH, lagging
behind for several weeks (which is not unreasonable for folks without
a phat pipe) is certainly not, especially if you are in a period of
massive transitions.


Martin Pitt              http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntulinux.org
Debian Developer        http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: