Re: Secret changes for binNMUs
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for
> > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but
> > for Debian's purposes, it's not optimal.
>
> So non "cabal" members should look at a different sbuild and then
> magically figure out where and how the secret one differs? What is the
> point in looking at sbuild if it isn't THE sbuild?
It's in Debian, and it's easy to use and understand. If it doesn't
diverge too far from the sbuild actually on svn.cyberhqz.com, it's also
good enough to give you a working setup for non-debian systems. IOW,
it should be close enough to the actual thing to be useful for the
general public, but cannot be close enough to the actual thing to be
useful for official build daemons.
> Last year the aim was to get the buildd sbuild and debian sbuild back
> in sync and it pains me to see Ryan silently diferting it further and
> further instead of aiding that goal.
That's one way to look at it.
The other way would be to say that Ryan has recently been actively
working on improving the code in the wanna-build SVN, and that the
people maintaining the sbuild package in Debian (Roger?) haven't been
paying too much attention to their upstream, likely because they didn't
see the link on buildd.debian.org--a link which I, admittedly, had
missed out on at first too, because it used to point to
cvs.linux-m68k.org. There is indeed still a wanna-build CVS repository
over there, but it's been effectively unmaintained for as long as I can
remember.
It should also be noted that Ryan, as appropriate for an Open Source
developer, is happy to review and (provided he doesn't have any
objections) apply any patches to sbuild or other things, too, as I've
been able to witness first-hand myself in the past.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: