Re: [Caml-list] Release 3.09.1
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:04:40PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > I agree with the spirit of this, too, but I noticed a big difficulty
> > in practice when we went through the 3.09.0 transition. If you depend
> > on lots of other OCaml components, and each one is going through this
> > same process of manual inspection, then the total time until you can
> > rebuild your package is very long (for example, I needed to wait for
> > all the ocamlnet, equeue, pcre, etc. libs to transition).
>
> That's the way Debian work: packages <-> maintainer.
>
> > Perhaps we should auto-build everything into experimental first, so
> > developers would have a consistent, new environment to build against.
> > Anything that fails to rebuild could cause a high-priority bug email
> > to the maintainer. Then after Zack's suggested one week period, the
> > successfully built packages (or manually uploaded ones) could go to
> > unstable.
>
> Note that I'm not against automation of the rebuilding process (I indeed
> automatically rebuild packages of mine). I'm against the automatic
> upload of packages rebuild that way, and binNMU is basically the same.
What about binNMUing into one of the DELAYED queue, and in addition into an
unofficial archive, so they can be tested and fixed if needed and still be
rebuilt automatically ?
> If someone is willing to automate the process of building packages from
> our svn this is fine for me. But they should not be uploaded before the
> maintainer look at them (a staging period before the uploaded as
> proposed may be ok if someone else can look and test them).
DELAYED-7-days may be enough maybe ?
Or maybe we do a single-arch full rebuilt externally (i am happy to try
providing the infrastructure for that, as i will be setting up my own powerpc
autobuilder in a month time or so), and once it is proven ok, we launch the
binNMU thingy ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: