On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 03:45 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > Bootstrap uploads of compilers etc are actually more common than I > thought before I started following debian-release. The important part of my statement is that they are special, rather than that they are rare. > They are common enough that requiring interactions from ftpmaster and/or > release team would make being a developer of such packages suck > significantly more. Hmm, OK. I can't recall seeing any recently on debian-release. > If we throw away binaries by default, I do believe we need a mechanism > for maintainers to signal that this is a bootstrap upload. My proposed mechanism is that when the buildds cannot do the job due to need for a bootstrap process, the maintainer should do a binary-only build (using whatever ugly hacks are needed), dak should import that into a special part of the archive for bootstrapping packages that need that and then tell the buildds to do a new non-bootstrap build but using the bootstrap archive. If bikesheds become a thing, we could even have one bootstrap archive per instance of a bootstrap being needed. Like Josch says, where possible, we also want the buildds to be capable of doing automated bootstrap builds that are enabled by automatic or maintainer-selected addition of bootstrap related build profiles. Until the special bootstrap archive and automated bootstrap builds are implemented, we could of course just import the maintainer bootstrap binaries into the main archive with a flag saying they need to be rebuilt before they can enter testing, and then do binNMUs. ISTR we have done similar things when importing whole architectures to ftp-master so I think some parts or flags for some of these things might already be in place. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part