Quoting Adrian Bunk (2019-05-14 10:11:46) > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or > > > ancient dh compat levels causes fewer problems than people trying to > > > change that just for the sake of it. > > > > In my experience ancient debian/rules runes are also a cause for > > repeated RC bugs and the need for NMUs. > > > > Real life example: > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/libm/libmp3-info-perl/changelog-1.24-1.2 > > > > Both RC bugs wouldn't have happened with dh(1); and the second NMU > > wouldn't have been necessary if I had switched to dh(1) in the first > > one. > > How well are you testing such conversions? > Based on work I've seen from you I'd guess your NMU would be better than > average. Unfortunately this is not generally true. > > Based on what enters the archive, "debdiff between old and new package" > already seems to be something that many people are not doing - then > cleaning up after mass-NMUs would be much work. > > I have even seen maintainers blindly replacing a complex old > debian/rules with the dh 3-liner, and all the bugfixes and > workarounds in the old one were bugs again. > > To show the quantitative side of my argument: > > The default change to parallel building in dh compat 10 alone has caused > a three digit number of RC bugs, popping up at a pace of 1-2 RC bugs > per week for several years. > > The problem is that anything that works for only 99% of all packages > results in such a high number of new bugs. > > Parallel build bugs slipping through an upload can happen, > but maintainers not going through the upgrading checklist > and running debdiff between old and new packages as well > as testing them when doing dh compat bumps is harder to > excuse - and in practice this does happen. > > There is no perfect solution here What makes reproducible-builds not the perfect fit for this? Whenever I converted a package to dh or bumped debhelper compat level, I always checked whether the produced binaries were bit-by-bit identical to the ones before. Are there many errors that I would be missing by relying on reproducibility results? Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature