On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why? > Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package to > fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user from > recompiling on his own system, which thusly defeats the point of having the > source in the first place. > If a package Fails To Build From Source on a end-user system it is an RC bug. > By bug definitions i would say a minimum of 'serious', but 'critical' would be > better. Why? Simple: If users can make the changes they want, than Debian is > NOT free. If it is not free, it has failed. So, if I try to compile a random package with icc and it fails, that is RC? That doesn't really make sense. At some point you need to draw the line. I think the clean-chroot build policy should be maintained. If users discover that a package does not build with some strange or non-standard combination of packages, then they are free to submit patches. However, the existence of such problems should not be considered RC since Debian is a binary distro. Think about it. I could have maintained gcc-2.95 on my system becuase I like it (or need it/whatever). If tried to build some of the bleeding edge packages with it, it will likely fail. That does not make it RC since Debian doesn't even ship 2.95 anymore as the default. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
pgpLGAI96jJCg.pgp
Description: PGP signature