On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 26/10/07 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 26/10/07 at 14:18 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > > > > > > I'm more interested in piuparts tests than in builds, actually. The > > > point is that most DDs don't use piuparts because there's not many > > > benefits in spending time setting it up. Having a piuparts installation > > > working on mentors.d.n would allow everybody to easily test his > > > packages. > > > > That would mean getting the package in Debian (with the dependencies), > > installing it, testing upgrading to the new deb etc., right? I just > > worry what happens if I try that with a package that pulls in 1 GB of > > dependencies. How would that work? (Disclaimer: I have just recently > > begun to actually use piuparts.) > > It works fine, but takes some time. I ran piuparts several times over > the whole archive, without running into severe problems.
I'll try that out. > > > Regarding builds, it might not be necessary, but it's still good to > > > have. When packages are waiting for a long time, rebuilding them from > > > time to time could exclude some packages that are no longer candidates > > > for sponsorship (since they fail to build). > > > > Right. But although I used to sponsor a lot of packages hardly any of > > them actually failed to build. Mostly because the maintainer forget a > > certain dependency. But it's certainly possible to run pbuilder on the > > package. > > What Ondrej proposes is to turn mentors into a package archive, where > packages would be built automatically on several arches, and people > could download them. In that case, it's required to build package for > all archs available in the service (you can't ask the uploader to do > that hmiself). Did Ondrej say that we need a public buildd? Actually that is something I would ratner not do because I have certain (very bad) experience with it. When we kept the uploaded binary (.deb) packages our support mailbox was literally flooded with end-users (!) complaints that the packages were buggy. They used it as debian-multimedia or other inofficial binary package repositories. I think that making it more a PPA-style service it a good idea - for *source* packages. But don't you think the focus is still the sponsoring process? I can't think of a case where people want to publish Debian packages but don't want them to get into Debian. Traffic is another concern. Without binary packages we are having less than 1 GB traffic from mentors. With binary packages it was a few hundred GB. I didn't have to pay for it but if people (ab)use it as marillat V2.0 then I wouldn't bet on the numbers any more. Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
