Le Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20:39AM +0200, olivier sallou a écrit : > > But I really like the idea of sending a binary build that is dropped by the > build system. It would avoid sending "accidently" (or not) a package that > does not build at all and uses resources (servers, ...) effortless.
Hi Olivier, It will happen anyway that packages will not build. For instance it happened to me in the past to upload a package built on a chroot for which I did not realise that it was using a mirror that was not up to date. There are also possible race conditions with uploads of a package's build dependancies. In all these cases, the locally built binary packages are again of limited use. Personally, for each upload I make to the Debian archive, I always send the build logs or commit them in the package's VCS. This is the first step towards debugging if the autobuilding fails. If it is necessary for DDs to certify that they built binary packages (but again, that does not prove that they tested them, etc.), how about asking them to publish the logs instead of asking them to upload the binary packages ? Or conversely, if it becomes a general practice to publish our build logs, it may become unnecessary to implement control procedures in our infrastructure. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20121022004307.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net
