Re: Buildd & binary-indep
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:01:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The not-so-evident part is that I want the syntax of this field to be
> > sufficiently extensible so that we can encode more information like
> > support of hardening build flags and similar stuff that we might want to
> > know to adjust the behaviour at build time.
> ...it gets derailed by this feature request for Build-Features, which a
> lot of people are much more dubious about (myself, for example: I think
> hardening flags should be handled similarly to parallel build flags, not
> via Build-Features).
The one thing I miss from this proposal is how to get rid of it in the
long run. The current interface is great, because it does not have a
negotiation stage -- you just run the command, and it either works, or
it doesn't. Adding a negotiation stage in order to achieve a smoother
transition is something we could do, but I think it should be dropped
afterwards, in order to keep the interface (c)lean.
The least contentious solution right now would be filing bugs, IMO. All
that'd need is an autobuilder and a few volunteers to process the
If someone else sets up the autobuilder, I can handle 50 logs a day.