Hi Rodney, On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 04:45:49PM -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 21:15 +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > > These are one line additions to debian/control.
> They are rebuilds. Maybe for all the packages that isn't an issue, but > for C++, it means that anything that provides a template the code uses, > and which has changed since the last build, has the potential to break > the behavior of the code using that template, as they are processed at > compile time, and not at runtime when the shlib is loaded. > Not trying to be annoying, but having two conflicting ways of getting > things done now, very much is annoying. And rest assured, the frustration goes both ways ;-) Ubuntu developers are responsible for the packaging across the entire archive, which includes responsibility for integration issues like this. We obviously don't want Ubuntu devs to accidentally assume that packaging-only changes are "safe" and lose the protection of the CI infrastructure; but on the other hand the CI process is currently very cumbersome for Ubuntu devs making packaging fixes, considering they should have the authority to make these changes directly without the overhead of merge proposals and reviews by upstream devs who /don't/ have the authority to make those same packaging changes. This leaves Ubuntu devs with an unpleasant choice: do they slow down their work in order to push all changes through the regular CI process, eliminating the risk of regression from a no-change rebuild? Or do they get the changes done in the archive efficiently, so that they don't have to spend half a day (or more) handholding the change through the system? We don't want Ubuntu devs to have to make this choice at all, which is why Ubuntu Engineering is working hard to improve this state of affairs with the CI Airline and autopilot/autopkgtest integration. In the near future, we can count on direct uploads of packages to the archive being subjected to the same automated CI tests that are applied when the packages are uploaded via landing silos, a win-win. I think in that case, we do want changes from the archive to be landed directly to the upstream branches in question, which I believe is already at least somewhat automated. Could you expand on your concern regarding "wrong versions"? If this isn't currently working the way it should, let's figure that out and get it fixed. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
