On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just > >have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That > >happens a lot. But this way you can upload packages which are already > >unbuildable. > > > >That's bad, mmkay? > > It's no different than the current situation. You admitted yourself that > it could happen right now if nobody uploaded a new vnc when the new libc > is in unstable. So I'm not sure what the point is. The only way to deal > with that is to continuously rebuild testing. (Isn't somebody doing this > already?) >
Why not build against testing by default, and have something auto-build against unstable and report to the maintainers of the package that won't build and the libary it won't build against whenever there is an error?
