Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Collins" <bcollins@debian.org>
To: "Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: <90511@bugs.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:23 AM
Subject: Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow
multi-distribution uploads)
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:51:06PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that packages compiled against old libc6-dev packages
are
> > > > not guarranteed to work with a new libc6? Well, better tell that to
all
> > > > the application vendors out there.
> > >
> > > No, but other libraries may show this problem. Not just that, but
> >
> > Any libraries which change the ABI without changing the soname is buggy,
> > period.
>
> Agreed. However, uploading to "stable unstable" is not the correct nor
> intended manner to test them.
>
> > > compiling against libc6-dev 2.1.3 does not mean it will compile
against
> > > libc6-dev 2.2.2
> >
> > That's a different problem.
>
> Correct, but one which we help to avoid with this proposal, and hope to
> alleviate by raising awareness of the seperation.
>
> > > No, you misinterpret this. I am saying that if you build against
> > > "stable" (see above, that is what I said), then the buildd's will
> > > compile against unstable for an unstable upload. So you argument about
> > > allowing testing of backward compatibility applies here. You are
> > > creating feature skew.
> >
> > Well for "stable unstable" uploads, the buildd should build it on
stable,
> > and upload it to "stable unstable". IIRC this is what you said in your
> > first message.
>
> It does. However, your argument was based on the "helpfulness" of
> building on stable and uploading to unstable. None of which is pertinent
> to this proposal.
>
> > > > Disallowing "stable unstable" uploads has a very small effect on
this.
> > >
> > > That's arguable, and not technically founded. However, allowing
> > > stable/unstable uploads implicitly allows this to happen. So if we
> > > enforce this in the long run, as you suggest, we will have to stop
> > > stable/unstable uploads anyway.
> >
> > Not for me. Most of my "stable unstable" uploads are for the kernels
> > which do not interact with libraries in any way.
>
> An excellent point. This is about the only valid thing I can forsee
> against this. Quite often builds are done for stable/unstable of kernels
> (I've done some myself for sparc kernels). I'll have to consider this
> one point. However, even with this, you do use a compiler and binutils
> that are quite different between the distributions. Take the upcoming
> gcc3, which will soon replace gcc-2.95 as the system compiler. We will
> have a period where the stable has gcc-2.95 and unstable has gcc-3.0.
> Should not the kernels be buildable by the compiler of the distribution
> for which they are uploaded to?
>
> > > Of course they are. It means the packages have to be compiled on
stable
> > > and uploaded to unstable. It means there is no way around that, and
> > > problems do occur because of it. By disallowing them, we are a step
> >
> > Well my point is that disallowing "stable unstable" doesn't solve those
> > problems for most packages, as "stable unstable" uploads are rare to
start
> > with. And for packages which don't have these problems, this incurs
> > significant overhead on the part of the maintainer.
>
> Actually they are less rare than you think. Most of the builds done by
> the security team incur this, since that usually means the maintainer
> isn't active (and hasn't been since stable released). I don't think the
> rareness of this event outweighs it's purpose since the problems are of
> a severity that justifies it, IMHO of course.
>
> --
> -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----
-
> / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux
\
> ` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com
'
>
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: