On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:48:10AM +0100, Michael Piefel wrote: > Am 19.11.03 um 07:42:18 schrieb Andreas Tille: > > After each buildd was able to build a package the whole > > set with all architectures enters unstable at once.
I like the idea. > Yeah, cool. That would get rid of many buggy packages. And many clean > ones. Some buildd are horribly behind time. No offence meant, it's not > necessarily sloppy maintainers, rather it's slow computers and extremely > complex packages. I don't think the speed of some of our buildd would be the point. Sooner or later the new packages will be compiled on our buildd: better before entering Debian than after and.. > Take workrave, for instance. Perfectly stable, as far as I can tell. Not > built recently on m68k (because of libgnomeuimm2.0-dev), not built on > alpha for a very long time (same reason). It's not in testing, which is > bad enough, with your idea only ancient versions would be in unstable. I think this is not what Andreas ment: I suppose he was trying to drop FTBFS bugs for those new packages missing correct Build-* fields. Packages that cannot be built because of correct source fields but missing dependencies, should not receive bugs (AFAICT) > Don't get me wrong. I actually quite like the thought. It just won't > work. Perhaps limit it to "when it's built for i386, powerpc, hppa and > arm". (That's were I got all my architecture-dependent bugs from, and > they are all quite current.) IMHO it would indeed work, if only we consider meaningful buildd reports (for what is our purpose). ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" | don't depend on the language.
