Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said:
> >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if
> >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer?
> >
> > That's what Unstable is for.
> 
> Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the
> process of spreading a package to mirrors, have people install it and file
> bug reports by hand? (Often these reports are a day later already
> out-of-date because it was just a matter of time.) Isn't one of our
> strenghts that we can automate what we can so we can use our time for all
> those tasks that are left?

Where do fully automated bug preventing techniques really work in 
Debian?

All places I know either require a serious amount of work to keep it
running or require people regularily checking the reports (which is 
often not done).

And note that "not installable packages" are only a small and not the 
worst class of bugs - and they are usually reported pretty fast.

"unstable" is unstable and every user of unstable is expected to know 
what to do when the installation of a package fails.

E.g. DSA-177-1 describes a _real_ problem - and this wouldn't have been 
caught.

> Regards,
> 
> Thijs Kinkhorst

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed