On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:24:25AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > - Architecture: all packages would not get built > > > > > > Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the > > > autobuilders building the arch: all stuff. > > > > Feel free to set up one. > > I feel like I am missing something here. Could you explain > "Architecture: all packages would not get built"? Is the problem with > binary arch independent packages?
No, when you upload a multi-"binary" package, and you have some which are binary : all, and others that are binary: any. The autobuilders will only build the arch-dependent stuff, and nobody build the arch: all packages. Usually when you upload, you upload both your arch's arch-dependent and the arch-independent packages. > > > The reason why source only uploads (or binary uploads where the binary > > > part is ignored) are good, is that they limit the errors that may be > > > introduced by the DD build environment, which may be a bit more than > > > just sid. Like when you have XFree86 4.3.0 experimental packages > > > installed for example. > > > > The reason why source only uploads are bad, is that they encourage bad > > practice such as people not checking the build. By requiring at least > > one binary package, we ensure the package can at least be built. That's > > a good thing, since it saves time otherwise wasted on packages failing > > to build because the maintainer didn't even bother to test. > > > > I have less problems with the second part of your suggestion ("binary > > uploads where the binary part is ignored"), as long as it's not so > > time-consuming that becomes a problem (which I'm afraid is likely to be > > the case). > > "binary uploads where the binary part is ignored" sounds very good. I > don't expect problems related to "time-consuming" since most binary > uploads are for x86 these days and x86 autobuilder cpu time should not > be very hard to find. x86 or powerpc. Maybe i will be able to provide a 1GHz G4 autobuilder in a few weeks or so, not sure though. It would probably need hosting though. > > > And if we are going to use experimental more and more, like aj > > > suggested, this is going to be more and more of a problem in the future. > > > > Since experimental isn't autobuilt, I fail to see your point. > > It believe he means that dd are more likely to have experimental > packages installed on their systems and thus upload broken binary > packages. Yep, that is what i meant. Friendly, Sven Luther