Thanks all for opinions! From my point of view, this tool will not be used (hopefully) too often, but sometimes it is really necessary to try it out before uploading a new source version. On 06/09/2013 08:44 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I have very mixed feelings about this. I do in general think that > would be good thing. But I see many requests where I think it just > doesn't make sense to me to retry it. > > If things fail randomly, I really want to know _why_ it fails, and > want to have that fixed. I don't want to retry until it randomly > works. But I do understand that it sometimes might be hard to > find why it sometimes fails. Kurt, I do really appreciate your work, and know, that it takes too much time to handle such requests. But in most of cases the failing archs are mips, mipsel, sparc and never "the most popular and used ones". I understand, that it would be very good to have a nice package, which always builds fine everywhere, but maintaining over 20 of them starts one to set the priorities, what to do first: whether to fix one more "real" bug or struggle with the random build-failures on the archs, where the package probably will never be even started. So, I think the developer should have a set of tools (including gb and even "slight" removal commands), which allow him to do the most of packaging work without worrying other teams/developers. And, of course, those tools should be relatively secure not to break others work and the whole archive. "gb" is a harmless in this case. Thank you, Anton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature