Hi! Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a > > (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his > > packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than) > > a source upload. If a DD uploads a broken package, he should be told > > so, and we should aim to help him do it better the next time (that's > > what we do in Ubuntu and it works very well). > > I think this same argument can be used in favour of binary uploads. > Trust the developer to keep their machine up to date and build working > packages, and tell them when they make a mistake.
I did not say that source uploads would make a DD more or less conscious about their uploads (I don't think so). I just said that source uploads are more convenient for the DD, cleaner design-wise, and avoid dependency and build chain breakage. > I've always found my mistakes are caught by the other buildds. > I don't remember ever uploading a broken i386 deb and source that > produced working debs on other architectures. I totally agree. > There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features > enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for > by analysing the packages files for different architectures or similar. The clean way to ensure this is to build them in a clean-room environment in the first place. It would be an unnecessary effort to implement more sanity checking in katie, and it is computationally impossible to check for additional/missing features in libary code. Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntulinux.org Debian Developer http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
