On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks - I have read the whole
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00760.html thread now, as
> well as have skimmed the debian-mentors thread another posted here.
>
> I agree whole-heartedly with your position, which has been
Asheesh Laroia wrote:
Dear Mentors,
I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my package
alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the archive.
I noticed that according to
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=alpine , the Debian archive never
builds i386
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080112 11:41]:
That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are
REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one
architecture.
Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is i
Asheesh Laroia skrev:
others here on debian-mentors and on debian-devel. I think "Require
binaries and throw them away" is a very good strategy. It seems there
is fairly wide consensus that having the buildds build every package is
a good thing.
Man, source-only uploads would literally save
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I realize that the "arch: all" packages would need technical attention
before the policy can be realized in practice, and there may be other
small technical issues to work out, but I imagine there are solutions
to
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I realize that the "arch: all" packages would need technical attention
> before the policy can be realized in practice, and there may be other
> small technical issues to work out, but I imagine there are solutions
> to those issues.
I guess some packages mig
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time
though, but I've been told several times
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> While a minimal chroot is good to test against missing
> build-dependencies, a full real-world system is needed to test for
> missing build-conflicts or configure switches to disable specific
> autodetections.
But nothing in the current system ensures that packages are bu
* Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080112 14:38]:
> Well, no. A ???pure unstable environment??? on a development box can have
> various configuration tweaks, differing from the defaults shipped with
> the packages, and that can impact the built binaries.
Source packages are supposed to be also
On 12/01/2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> While a minimal chroot is good to test against missing
> build-dependencies, a full real-world system is needed to test for
> missing build-conflicts or configure switches to disable specific
> autodetections.
Sure.
> So when you get disparities between a
* Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080112 12:13]:
> But nothing ensures it is built in a chroot, which might occasion
> disparities between uploaded binaries and built-on-the-buildd-network
> binaries.
Binaries do not need a chroot, just a clean unstable environment.
While a minimal chroot is
* Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080112 11:41]:
> >That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are
> >REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one
> >architecture.
>
> Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it just
> historical?
Sorry if this
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
> developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time
> though, but I've been told several times that I'll be an old DD before
> it gets a ch
On 12/01/2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> It's a bit of a historical thing, left over from the days when
> everybody used i386 boxes. There is only one i386 buildd (which was
> down recently).
>
> The idea is that since you should be test building your package in a
> clean sid chroot anyway you might
Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I'm a Debian Maintainer now
Congratulations.
> That sort of creeps me out - I'd much rather exercise a buildd and make
> sure that a pristine package gets into the archive.
It's a bit of a historical thing, left over from the days when everybody
used i386 boxes. There is
Please use list-reply. No need to Cc people if they didn't request it,
see the Debian lists policy.
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it just
> historical?
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer'
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are
REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one
architecture.
Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it ju
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my
> package alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the
> archive.
Indeed, check[1].
1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alpine/news/20080105T014704Z.html
> I noticed that accord
Dear Mentors,
I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my package
alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the archive.
I noticed that according to
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=alpine , the Debian archive
never builds i386 packages. To my surpri
19 matches
Mail list logo
