Re: Building packages twice in a row
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Martin Zobel-Helas <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:11:55 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be better to unpack a package twice in two different
>>> directories, build and clean in one dir and then compare the obtained
>>> tree with the tree available in the other dir?
>> That would surely be the better solution to catch this policy violation.
> Many, many more packages would fail this and some of us (such as myself)
> believe strongly that many of the reasons why they would fail this should
> not be policy violations. I think the current test is excellent since it
> catches a concrete problem and isn't testing the current wording of policy
> in a vacuum.
> We at some point do need to get back to the discussion about what policy
> should say clean should actually do.
The BIG problem with this loose approach is that modifying a package
and sending in a diff becomes painfull. You build your package and run
diff and you end up with a few 100k lines of diff that are basically
all autogenerated files. The few lines actual change get easily lost
But I agree with the approach to first find and fix the cases that
FTBFS the second time around. They are the truely evil ones and
already enough work for now.