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

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


Steve Langasek [2005-08-22 18:09 -0700]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
> > > Quoting Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>:
> > > > I used to think that too.  I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
> > > > I don't think that any more.  I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
> > > > sustain source-only uploads, honestly.
> > > Mandatory, signed build and test logs?  I've no idea...
> > Ubuntu does not do anything of that sort. If I merely fix a
> > description or add a Recommends:, I don't need to bother with
> > rebuilding the package locally, and if I fix something bigger, I need
> > to build and test the package anyway.
> > The system of source uploads works well in Ubuntu, so please don't try
> > to invent problems which don't matter in reality.
> So, hmm, what about the anecdotal evidence of some Ubuntu maintainers doing
> 3-4 sequential uploads of a package before finally uploading a version that
> is buildable from source *anywhere*?

This will teach them to do a build before uploading. :-) In most
cases, this is due to forgotten build depends, so this problem is
quite orthogonal to source-only uploads. Such failures happen in
Debian, too (however, not quite as often, since katie runs much more
often in Ubuntu, so it's much more tempting to just throw it at a
buildd and see what happens). 

It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force
building packages in pbuilder. buildd time is cheap compared to
developer time, so introducing mandatory pbuilding would slow down
development quite drastically. 

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: