Quoting Jérémy Lal (2013-10-06 11:40:32) > On 06/10/2013 11:28, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:53:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> Feels to me that it would be better to fix this at its core instead > >> of covering over it by use of bogus build-dependency. I am sure > >> you've already considered that option, and would appreciate your > >> elaborating more (I saw and tried to follow your conversation on > >> irc, but failed to understand it there). > > > > I don't think artificial build-dependencies are a particularly > > inappropriate fix. > > > > Any change to britney to try to have it promote only architectures > > that worked would amount to accepting permanent technical debt in > > unstable, which I think is very poor design. Package maintainers > > should generally be trying to avoid dependency breakage in unstable > > where they can as well as in testing (or, to put it another way, > > accepting permanent dependency breakage in unstable makes it harder > > to see the wood for the trees), and by far the simplest way to do > > this is to fix the packages rather than blaming the infrastructure > > for pointing out a real problem. > > (I have nothing to say about the general case) for the particular case > of node-* packages, it is true that when test suites are or will be > run, they will have to build-depend on nodejs. So adding a > build-dependency on nodejs for each arch:all module doesn't seem so > bad to me today.
Right. Makes good sense to me too, putting it like that. Thanks to both of you to help me understand this. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
