On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:46:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 08:22:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> [110211 23:01]: > > > 3) uniform, known build environments > > I think is a major disadvantage of this suggestion.
> I'm unconvinced by your (implicit) argument that switching to an uniform > build environment will make the current testing of packages built in > "weird" environments any worse than the present situation. > Package maintainers are already expected to upload packages built in > clean environment. > If they are not doing it, then we have a problem of best practices > which are followed by the developer community. No, best practice is to verify *that their packages build correctly in a clean environment*. The easiest and most reliable way to do that is by doing the build in such a clean environment yourself and using that build for the upload. But it is wrong to say that we expect all uploaded packages to have been built in a clean environment. That's part of the reason we have a Build-Conflicts field in the first place. I am certainly not opposed to the current plans to do all builds on the buildds, but let's not go rewriting history here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vor...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/ -- 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/20110213183839.gb24...@becquer.dodds.net
