Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > Why not? Just block binary uploads completely, and let everything get > > built by the buildds. I certainly plan to do that with my own uploads. > > (I've already set up my own buildds). > > > > I'd go one step farther and schedule a low-priority rebuild of everything > > that build-depends on a package which gets updated. > > How about this: > > * Maintainer does normal build, doing -all and -arch debs. Maintainer > uploads. > * dak verifies upload as normal. > * dak adds new source to unstable, but not the debs. > * buildds then proceed to build new source. one buildd is choosen to build > the -all debs.
Nearly perfect. The archive scripts might have problems with sources without debs. I also suggest building the -all debs by multiple buildds (all but one with low priority if you fear overworked buildds) and throw away maybe-successfull builds automatically (by all but the primary buildd). Doogie already said he wants to implement a smart comparator for deb in dpkg 2.0 which would then be used to compare that different builds of the binary-all even give the same result. I also like the idea of rebuilding packages with newer versions of their build-depends (or tool-chain) when a buildd is idle. That too would require a more automatic handling of maybe-successfull builds that won't be uploaded. MfG Goswin