* Philipp Kern ([email protected]) [100405 20:36]: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 02:47:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > And I think it's a good thing that not all buildds use lvm chroots > > so that we actually find problems we might not see otherwise, or > > maybe much later. > > Sadly, I have to differ on this one. I'd rather appreciate a coherent, > identical setup everywhere where it's possible. Either fail everywhere > due to that issue or nowhere. Having setup differences that boil down > to "this buildd of that arch behaves differently than the others" or > "I guess this is arch-specific because it only happens there" (while > it's just due to the setup), does not help IMO.
I think it might be a good idea to also uninstall packages on a few buildds, but without failing the builds but with appropriate messages in the build log. This comes without real cost on fast arches, and doesn't really have impact (it is *after* the builds, and sbuild should write something like "errors after this line are ignored"). And, we discussed that earlier, confnew: If a conffile has been modified always install the new version without prompting. (instead of prompting as usual) whereas it doesn't steal a file from another package without replacing (that'd be overwrite: Overwrite one package's file with another's file. and I agree that this shouldn't be set), just to avoid confusion. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
