Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Goswin Brederlow
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:17:01AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Don't upload binaries at all. The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions of all

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Goswin Brederlow
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are several reasons not to do this. Don't upload binaries at all. Why? The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. YOU should do that. To err is human. It will build in

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. YOU should do that. To err is human. Yes. But that does not transform to Dont do it, i could make an error. There are enough ways to test your Build-Depends. And if you have an up2date

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:44:24AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Don't upload binaries at all. The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions of all tools. If you upload binaries

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Goswin Brederlow
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:44:24AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Don't upload binaries at all. The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions of all tools. If you upload binaries you get the usual bugs of

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread John Goerzen
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Imagine for eample the case where the sources are missing files, as happens too often. Then the binary is in violation of the GPL. Not good. So why not let the autobuilder do their job for all archs. Because then there's no

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-09-01 Thread Goswin Brederlow
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Imagine for eample the case where the sources are missing files, as happens too often. Then the binary is in violation of the GPL. Not good. So why not let the autobuilder do their

Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Dale Scheetz
Since I have access to both Intel and Sparc hardware, it would be possible for me to upload both the i386 version and the Sparc version of the binary packages when I build a new release. Is there any reason not to do this? It seems that it might speed up the autobuild process, specially when it

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:09:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: Since I have access to both Intel and Sparc hardware, it would be possible for me to upload both the i386 version and the Sparc version of the binary packages when I build a new release. Several people do this. It's not exactly

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Adam Heath
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Dale Scheetz wrote: Is there any reason not to do this? It seems that it might speed up the autobuild process, specially when it is a library like libgmp3 which other packages depend upon for their builds... Not really. Once you upload the pkg, and in the next 15 minute

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Ryan Murray
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:09:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: Is there any reason not to do this? It seems that it might speed up the Save you time, and if you aren't actually following the current status of the extra archs you build for, you might end up uploading it during an arch-specific

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Goswin Brederlow
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I have access to both Intel and Sparc hardware, it would be possible for me to upload both the i386 version and the Sparc version of the binary packages when I build a new release. Is there any reason not to do this? It seems that it might speed

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread John Goerzen
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:09:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: Is there any reason not to do this? It seems that it might speed up the I do that frequently and it seems to work well. I use Alpha, PowerPC, and i386 regularly and all three are machines I use to build on for Debian. Sometimes I

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:17:01AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Don't upload binaries at all. The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions of all tools. If you upload binaries you get the

Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer

2002-08-31 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are several reasons not to do this. Don't upload binaries at all. Why? The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. YOU should do that. It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper versions of all