Re: compiling packages
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:48:38PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > There is no strict policy on this, but if the packages are not one of the
> > base (important, essential) packages or of the tool chain (gcc, gdb), it's
> > okay to upload those.
>
> Well there's Debian Developer's Reference section 8.2, which says that
> it's okay to do binary NMUs (no change whatsoever to the source) right
> away (no asking, no waiting). That's what autobuilders are doing.
The list above is the list I am already caring about a lot. If you are going
to interfere with my work without telling my, my work will interfere with
yours. This puts both of us into an unpleasant situation, which can so easily
be avoided by just letting me know about your plans. (My typical reaction
will be either of "Great! Thank you." or "Great! Thank you, but notice
that you also need to ..., the reason being...")
The topic in this thread was an inofficial guideline for people who are
producing some binary packages for the Hurd and want to upload it, that's
all.
> > Please test if at least the basic functionality is
> > there, and the installation works at least on your system (it can be useful
> > to upload even if a force-depends is necessary, or other small bugs are
> > there).
>
> New versions may involuntarily break/undo some Hurd fix that
> was in the old version.
It's far easier to catch this early than to be sorry and clean up after a
mistake.
> Uploading a broken package will of course hurt
> Hurd herders, but ultimately I don't think the builder should be held
> responsible -- IMHO it's OK for such bugs to go to the maintainer,
> whom we should help of course.
You can help everyone by submitting the bug you discover when testing it,
and avoid uploading such broken packages.
(What you describe works for the current Linux ports, and it will work for
us when we have catched up and have more eye-balls on the ftp archive.
Currently, where I have to put a lot of energy to get and keep the ftp
archive at least a bit consistent and usable, it doesn't.)
> > > What if changes to the source code are required?
> >
> > [...], and even doing NMUs is a lot of work, and costs time spread
> > over several days, which is difficult to organize in most peoples
> > life.
>
> Hmm, I've not done a porter NMU yet, but I imagine it as follows:
Please do some. If your scheme works for you, then fine, we will make some
good progress. But don't think that this easy scheme works for everyone, it
doesn't for me, and I actually doubt it will work for you either except in
the simplest of the cases. (For example, try to do a NMU of X *and* survive
Brandens reactions :)
Marcus
Reply to: