On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > Its good for the autobuilders to check again if a package builds in a > > > > mainly minimal environment. > > > > > > That's an argument for building it *once* in such an environment. It > > > is definitely not an argument that it should only be built in such an > > > environment, which was the point in question. > > > > Ok, no problem. I suppose you just volunteered to fix all the bugs > > against my packages that fail due to broken dependency brought in by > > using experimental packages. > > You have a significant number of such bugs? That's like standing up in > a crowded room and announcing you have a highly contagious skin > disease.
Well, i would potentially have one for every xlibs depending package i upload. As well as all the other people who run experimental stuff on their developer box. > > And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_ > > package out there by hand on _every_ architecture ? > > > > Have you seriously thought about what you are proposing here ? > > What are you talking about? I'm not the one proposing anything. Yes, you propose that we should build our packages on widely unhomogenous systems with random non-official packages on it, some of which may even include incompatible patches or whatever. > The proposal was "All packages should be built in an artificial > environment of this form". I have pointed out that this is a > braindamaged idea. Thanks for calling me braindamaged :) Seriously, i perfectly understood what you are proposing, and i think you don't realize the things involved for making such a proposal. Think about it seriously, and you will see why your proposal is not a good idea. Friendly, Sven Luther
