Ainsi parlait Vincent Danen :
> On Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:47:50AM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
> > > > I don't believe there is anyone enjoying having to mantain 4
> > > > different packages of the same software when one would suffice.
> > >
> > > Probably not. But if you, as a contributor, have a cooker machine and
> > > compile on cooker, how can you possibly know if your package, despite
> > > having conditional build macros, will work with an older distrib if you
> > > don't take the time to build and test on that old platform? So you
> > > *do* need to maintain it in such a manner otherwise you're just pumping
> > > out stuff that pretends to work on old distribs and you really don't
> > > have a clue if it does or not.
> >
> > But, the point is that if people are interested in maintaining their
> > packages for rebuild on older releases, then it may be possible to make
> > this easier by having automated rebuilds on stable releases.
>
> Yes, but don't you understand that automatic rebuilds is not enough? It
> needs to be *tested* first.
I didn't pretend it was enough, just that getting stable versions for free,
without any additional human resources need, would be a gain over current
situation.
It would not bring an updated version of stable distribution for sure, but at
least provide packages with far better chance of working on stable version
that cooker packages.
And nothing prevent packagers from testing on stable, as well as they are
testing on cooker.
--
The Cavalry doesn't always come to the rescue
-- Murphy's Military Laws n�76
