Re: s390 build box?
Bart Martens <email@example.com> wrote:
> > What's the Debian way of handling this? I know that if I upload the new
> > package to unstable, it will at least be no worse than the previous version,
> > but it also seems like a waste of time to upload it if it just has more
> > problems under the s390 arch. Should I continue attempting to find an s390
> > box, is there something somebody out there can do to help, or should I just
> > have my new packages uploaded and hope for the best?
> Maybe this page helps:
That at least gives me another mailing list to send my questions to,
My question was really geared to "any architecture" though... when
it's an arch you don't have access to;
1) If you "think" you've fixed the problem, should you upload a new
package that "Closes:" the bug?
2) How long should you let a FTBFS bug stick around for on account
of lack of testability before you give up and just upload it anyway and hope
for the best?
3) Is there any sort of (organized or disorganized) effort / method
for obtaining builds of your package on architecture X before they're
uploaded to debian? Is experimental good for this?
3a) Is experimental good for anything? Eg; if I have a test package
uploaded to "experimental", with a "Closes:" line in the changelog, will it
close the bug? Will it typically get autobuilt? Can I upload the exact same
package to unstable later if it turns out that the bug is indeed fixed? The
dev. reference says "the experimental packages are automatically removed
once you upload the package in unstable with a higher version number"...
which seems to imply that it's not a *true* staging area, since I can't
promote a package that's byte-for-byte the same.