[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Explications needed...

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:20:30AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 à 16:45 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > So first of all, neither the debian-arm list, nor the #debian-arm channel,
> > nor his blog are a communication medium that's guaranteed to reach the arm
> > buildd maintainer *or* the buildd local admins.  For the former, you want
> > $port@buildd.debian.org; for the latter, there is no list of contacts other
> > than the buildd maintainer, since these may change semi-frequently and most
> > buildd changes need to be coordinated with the buildd maintainer anyway.

> An arm buildd maintainer not reading debian-arm@l.d.o is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer. You can't pretend to be the one
> handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions
> around problems specific to this architecture. Would you trust a release
> manager who wouldn't be reading debian-release?

debian-release is a contact address for the release team.  debian-arm is not
a contact address for the arm buildd admin.

> > If he only uploads packages that haven't been built by the autobuilders, or
> > failed to build on the autobuilders, we still have the problem that there is
> > no single party who can account for the configuration of all the buildds
> > that were used for uploading packages, because there has been no
> > coordination -- so building these packages on rogue autobuilders is a poor
> > predictor of whether the autobuilders will be able to build them again later
> > when a security update is needed.  Indeed, in the case of Aurelien's
> > buildds, we have the additional variable of using emulated arm systems -- I
> > don't know what ARM instruction set qemu emulates, and I don't know who else
> > among the ARM porters knows, maybe it's been discussed and maybe it hasn't,
> > but it's definitely another variable that contributes to these buildds being
> > a poor predictor for the official autobuilders.

> Please, let's be consistent. How is it any different to the sourceful
> upload case?

Individual maintainers don't do sourceful uploads of 20 packages a day.

Package maintainers are expected to test their packages before uploading
them; buildd maintainers are not.

Clearly there are differences.  You may disagree with whether these
differences warrant a difference in policy, but they are there.

> In fact, I trust Aurélien's buildd much more than my own
> sourceful uploads; last month I have broken an amd64 package by not
> building it within the right chroot, while this cannot happen with his
> buildd using the same software setup as the official buildd network.

Of course it can.  It may be less likely to happen, but that's just as well
since any problems like this on a buildd would affect a significantly
greater number of packages, too.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: