* Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> [110212 21:58]:
> The other side to this is that fixing such bugs gains us very litle.
>
> If we have a guaranteed clean build environment + package build deps,
> we have as complete consistency as is practicable.
You might have no problem producing nice binary packages so people might
consume those binary packages. Users not only wanting to consume binary
packages but to extend their software, to fix bugs that bother them
(i.e. helping you) will have a problem. Porters trying to fix your
crappy non-portable software will have to jump through hoops (i.e. be
less willing to help you fix bugs that might eventually also pester the
more maintain architectures). And so on.
Allowing things to build in a non-artificial environment is simply an
important part of being a good free software citizen. We as packagers do
not like it if upstream has an arcane build system that mostly only
works on their build servers, so we should also allow out users to
get things builds.
> The former situation is simple, robust and maintainable. But the
> latter, it's a virtually intractable problem, and given the lack of
> concern about it up to now, it's not a major worry for most people,
> and from a cost/benefit POV it doesn't look practical.
Nobody claims it is easy.
I think there is even a measurable part of people producing binary-only
"freeware" mostly because they do not want to be bothered by people with
problems compiling their source.
But it is an essential part of doing it right, so we should try to do
our best and not just give up early.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20110213114257.ga11...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
