On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:51:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:47PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:02:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Really, I don't really understand all the difficulty of running > > > apt-get -b source, or pbuilder, or some such for n+1 archs as opposed > > > to just n. With a little use of ssh keys, the whole thing should be > > > completely automated. And I thought that's basically what the > > > security team does, anyway. If we keep them with a useable machine > > > (which DOES make sense as a requirement), then where is the issue? > > > > How often this works, however, is the problem. The source may not > > build cleanly everywhere. Some dependency may be broken, or not > > install properly in the build daemon, or so forth. > > Is not this supposed to be fixed before a package ever enters testing, > let alone stable?
Things evolve. It may have built against an earlier version, for instance. > OK. Assuming that they are open to that. I have no reason to assume > either way, I guess. I think I can safely assure you that we are :-) > > I think what this is crying out for is a second testing setup, covering > > Perhaps, but then why not just use the existing testing setup? Because, as has been explained several times, it doesn't scale. This allows the sub-testing to be coordinated separately. Managed separately. Run on a separate archive even. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
