On 26/05/10 at 11:55 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 26/05/10 08:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > >> 124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540. > >> > >> (I've heard of off-by-one errors but off-by-one-order-of-magnitude is a > >> stretch.) > > > > No. 124 is the number of packages that failed to build. Not the number > > of source packages that silently generated incorrect binary packages. > > Right. That's exactly why I suggested debdiffing the resulting binary packages > from a new and an old dash.
Are you volunteering? :-) Just debdiffing doesn't work, since some source packages generate different things by design (think of html converters that generate random identifiers for html and images). Generally, I am interested in the idea of comparing rebuild results to find problems (not only old dash vs new dash, but also current archive vs freshly rebuilt). But I don't have the time to work on that myself. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100526111416.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info
