On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 03:34:56PM +0000, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > >> Auto-building arch:all packages > >> ===============================
> >> [snip] > > This is all great news! > > If I'm not mistaken, the last feature that needs to be implemented in > > wanna-build for us to be able to drop all maintainer-uploaded binaries, and > > only ship binaries built on the buildds, is build architecture affinity for > > architecture: all packages. What's the outlook on this happening? > I feel that arch:all packages requiring a specific architecture (or not > buildable on amd64) are quite marginal. We can handle them by > hand. However, this is not a blocker to have throw-away binaries > implemented since we will always need to upload binaries (from time to > time) to fix some toolchain issues or at an early stage of an > architecture bootstrap. I am pretty sure FTP-folks can propose a > solution to have throw-away binaries enabled by default, and special > casing a few packages (e.g. using a special field in the .changes file, > or have a list of whitelisted packages, or ...). Given that there is already a spec for a control field that would provide architecture affinity for arch-all builds, I think that's a much better solution than implementing a separate control field for special casing packages so that they are *not* built on the buildds. Ultimately I believe the goal here should be that all binary packages installed on Debian systems should be reproducible builds. Things that get us closer to this - like ensuring that all packages in the archive are built on the buildds in pristine Debian environments, and that if they require building on a different build architecture this is declared in debian/control - are a good thing; things that work around this are not so good. Yes, we will need to support bootstrapping - which in practice happens far more often in corners of the archive (compiler self-depends, etc) than just when we add a new architecture. But I would argue that, as build profile support matures, even these bootstrap binary packages should be disallowed in the main archive, and instead only used as build-dependencies by the buildds. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
