On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:43:57PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:56:24PM +0200, Anton Gladky wrote: > > So, I think the developer should have a set of tools (including gb and > > even "slight" removal commands), which allow him to do the most of > > packaging work without worrying other teams/developers. And, of course, > > those tools should be relatively secure not to break others work and the > > whole archive. "gb" is a harmless in this case. > > it is not. If you rely on random successes of your build this is worse than not > providing a build at all. If there's a security issue, people will be forced to > spend time on the issue. Either the Security Team or by extension the Stable > Release Team, to get it built to finally include it into a point release or > leave it lingering forever in p-u-new because a test case fails. It's not always the case of relying on random successes of your build. There are valid cases -- for example, if a build-dep, or a dep of a build-dep had a bug that prevented installation, and has just been fixed. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature