George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > True, and Martin's reasoning is about consistency across the > architectures, not that much after security, as I read it.
That argument I agree with. > On Saturday 02 September 2006 02:41, Russ Allbery wrote: >> However, that does not mean I think it's a bad idea. I actually think >> it's a good idea, but for a somewhat different reason. Every single >> time we get ready to release stable, someone builds every package in >> the distribution and then encounters a bunch of FTBFS errors, >> particularly for arch: all packages. Many of those errors were always >> there and were never detected because we don't build arch: all packages >> anywhere outside the maintainer's system. > Fortunately there are lots of people running personal autobuilders and > reporting FTBFS's lately, even in the arch:all packages. Sure, because we're approaching a release. My impression is that this activity ramps up considerably before a release, which adds to the problem of growing RC bug counts right when we're trying to shrink them. The solution is to find the problems earlier and in a way that breaks something the maintainer immediately cares about. If packages couldn't get into the archive unless they built on at least one autobuilder, I think that would cut down on a lot of RC bugs that are only found later and get maintainers to be more aggressive about fixing them immediately. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
