Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
* Frank Küster:
>> We aren't prepared to deal with that in some important cases. For
>> instance, if large numbers of identically-versioned binary packages
>> are published, there will quite a few issues in the short term .
>
> Hm, what problems are you talking about?
Right now, if there's a bug report in the BTS that, for example, cook
2.26-1 has been miscompiled on amd64 and has got an important bug as a
result, we can be pretty sure that the submitter talks about the
version in our archive. If there was a separate buildd network that
did not upload to the official archive and was somewhat popular among
our users[1], it's no longer obvious which version is broken. (And
for interoperability with various bug tracking efforts, you'd really
want to keep the official version numbers.)
[1] It could be more up-to-date, use more conservative GCC defaults
(-fwrapv -fno-strict-aliasing -fstack-protector), or provide an audit
trail that gives people a warm fuzzy feeling.
>> (and fear of such confusion already led to drastic measures on
>> behalf of the project)
>
> What measures? Can you provide any links?
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00760.html>
Reply to: