Re: Freeze exception for dpkg 1.14.18
On 26/04/08 at 20:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:49PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > And most of the bugs have been filed within days, and
> > > fixed already. It's possible that some packages were broken in more
> > > subtle ways not resulting in a build failure, but we still have 5 months
> > > to find them.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to have 18 months to find them? This change could
> > have been delayed 5 months with no downside that I can see. Instead
> > we're left wondering how many packages might accidentially pass broken
> > CFLAGS into subdirectories, build successfully, and yet change behavior
> > in unknown ways. These bugs can be exposed at any time up till the hard
> > freeze as a given package is uploaded and gets recompiled for the first
> > time since the change.
>
> Also note that despite the archive rebuild that was done, I don't think
> there was a full archive rebuild on all architectures. We could also
> have surprises with packages setting necessary flags for some
> architectures (we have such rules on mozilla stuff, for example, but
> fortunately, they aren't hit by dpkg-buildpackage trying to be smart),
> and we won't find out until all packages get built on all architectures,
> which is not even remotely likely to happen before the release.
>
> > Effectively, we've chosen "it builds -- ship it!"
>
> Not even so, it's "it's built -- ship it!" (how many packages have not
> been rebuilt since sarge, again?)
Not that many, according to what I found out in
http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=242
(Summary: on 24/06/2007, 43% of the packages in unstable had been
rebuilt since the etch release, 94% since the sarge release, and only
one package was never rebuilt since woody, but it was removed since
then)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: