Re: RFH: bashisms in configure script
On 26/05/10 at 11:55 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 26/05/10 08:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> 124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540.
> >> (I've heard of off-by-one errors but off-by-one-order-of-magnitude is a
> >> stretch.)
> > No. 124 is the number of packages that failed to build. Not the number
> > of source packages that silently generated incorrect binary packages.
> Right. That's exactly why I suggested debdiffing the resulting binary packages
> from a new and an old dash.
Are you volunteering? :-)
Just debdiffing doesn't work, since some source packages generate
different things by design (think of html converters that generate
random identifiers for html and images).
Generally, I am interested in the idea of comparing rebuild results to
find problems (not only old dash vs new dash, but also current archive
vs freshly rebuilt). But I don't have the time to work on that myself.