[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How often is any package tested for FTBS on main arch ?

Le Friday 4 May 2012 11:09:52, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Dominique Dumont <dod@debian.org> wrote:
> > We, sdl maintainers, made a recent change in our package by removing
> > unnecessary build depends on -dev packages [1].
> ... at which point you should have looked at the list of reverse
> dependencies and done some tests yourselves before uploading ...
> i.e. not rebuild all 400 necessarily but to identify those which of
> those 400 do not already build-depend on the packages you removed and at
> least let the maintainers of the packages know that your change may
> reveal an RC bug in their packages.

Sorry, no. SDL team was recenty reconstructed from scratch [1] and we have 
only 2 active people. I don't count myself as active in sdl team as I mostly 
do package reviews and upload. We just don't have the time to perform what you 
suggest just to compensate for easy-to-fix packaging mistakes.

> > Unfortunately, some package did rely on this "extra" dependencies and
> > went ftbs [2].
> ... which could, arguably, be jointly your fault as this could have
> been handled cleanly if done so in advance.

Not my fault, nor current team's fault: this mistake was done years ago. We 
are still cleaning up what we found.

> Yes, the maintainer of the
> other packages made a mistake by relying on indirect dependencies (it's
> usually best to build-depend on everything you check for in your
> configure stage) but that bug was revealed by your change, so it would
> have been helpful to raise this as a problem in advance.

Agreed. I admit I did not foresee the potential problem.

> How about doing the real work instead and identifying which packages
> might be affected, alerting those maintainers and starting a few
> rebuild tests of this shortened list? Then you've got some real data
> to make the decision about what to do.

Actually, the whole point of my mail was to gather real data from work already 
done. Thanks to Lucas, we know about failing packages. Too bad we don't know 
about succeeding packages.

All the best

[1] http://ddumont.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/sdl-team-revival/


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: