Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > #include <hallo.h> > * Frank Küster [Tue, Aug 01 2006, 01:55:14PM]: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >> >> > On Aug 01, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> > > Also, pbuilder and debootstrap are considered absolutely critical for >> >> > > serious work. >> >> > That's a bold statement. >> >> Are you serious? (SCNR ;-) >> > Yes. I do not use either and I think I have been doing serious Debian >> > work so far. > > Argh, the smiley was there for a reason... > >> > Building in chroots *hides* bugs. >> >> Of course. However, not building in chroots also hides bugs. Why do >> you think it's better to build in a chroot? > > After all, I think after comparing pros and cons the bill will be even. > But at much higher processing costs. I am sceptical about pbuilder > because of it, and because it leads to too much thrust into the tool > instead of thinking about possible consequences of changes.
Yeah. I always develope outside (or in an unclean) chroot and when I want to release I mangle the source through a clean chroot / buildd again for a final test. >> I think a package should be built on the developer's system (which, >> hopefully, is a typical example for the environment were the package >> will be used and built), and in a clean chroot. It should be tested (in > > I think it should be working in both, therefore I like the general > concept of building in normal environment and uploading package as > source trough the auto-builder. That won't test your binary-all target as small as that part is. >> the sense of: Can it be installed? Does it run at all?) in a chroot, >> and also on the developer's system. Of course the amount of testing >> needed depends on the extent of the changes. > > Testing is not always enough to catch all possible bugs. But not testing is a sure way to overlook them. :) > Eduard. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]