release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
Hi, On Dienstag, 20. November 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a > > source-only upload. > > Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement? > Both. I'd argue that it's a bug in both. BTW, can we have this as a release goal for jessie, that all packages have been build on Debian buildd infrastructure? ;-) cheers, Holger -- 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/201211212059.03249.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 20.59:02, Holger Levsen a écrit : > Hi, > > On Dienstag, 20. November 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a > > > source-only upload. > > > Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement? > > > > Both. > > I'd argue that it's a bug in both. > > BTW, can we have this as a release goal for jessie, that all packages have > been build on Debian buildd infrastructure? ;-) Actually, I like that way to put it as it leaves us with multiple ways forward: * accept source-only; * drop uploaded binaries; * (optionally: ) diff built and uploaded binaries, blame; What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or all (as in arch:any) packages on buildds. OdyX -- 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/201211212121.19776.o...@debian.org
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: > What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or all > (as > in arch:any) packages on buildds. Are there any reasons to not built arch:all on buildds aside from technical problems? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: > > What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or > all (as > > in arch:any) packages on buildds. > Are there any reasons to not built arch:all on buildds aside from > technical problems? > > -- > WBR, wRAR > -- YunQiang Su
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:06:22PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? How is that related to my question? Also, please don't top-post and dont send me copies. > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: > > > What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or > > all (as > > > in arch:any) packages on buildds. > > Are there any reasons to not built arch:all on buildds aside from > > technical problems? > > > > > -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
Didier Raboud dijo [Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100]: > > > > I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a > > > > source-only upload. > > > > Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement? > > > > > > Both. > > > > I'd argue that it's a bug in both. > > > > BTW, can we have this as a release goal for jessie, that all packages have > > been build on Debian buildd infrastructure? ;-) > > Actually, I like that way to put it as it leaves us with multiple ways > forward: > > * accept source-only; > * drop uploaded binaries; I would join this camp as well. Without the working knowledge of being a DSA or buildd-admin, I cannot assure how much would this increase our workload, but it would probably just mean rebuilding for the most popular architectures (that is, AMD64 or i386), hardware for which is readily available and should pose no additional effort to get. And it would mean IMO a good leap forward in ensuring buildability — Even more with arch:all > * (optionally: ) diff built and uploaded binaries, blame; This can be a bit more tricky. Of course, diffing the .build fails would not work, to begin with, because of the pathnames. But even diffing the shipped files — two shipped files are not guaranteed to be bit-by-bit identical, even if compiled in the same hardware. > What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or all > (as > in arch:any) packages on buildds. Rebuilding arch:all packages is quite important IMO. I would probably add a "rebuild when entering testing" where this to be a perfect world, to ensure continued buildability. But I know it's probably too much to ask... And it would still be incomplete (as "rebuilding anything that build-depends on this package" could still be added — And down this path we can find madness...) -- 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/20121123163002.ga6...@gwolf.org
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote: >you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when you should be building locally for testing purposes. * Reproducibility - buildds provide a more controlled environment than developers' machines. This means that it's less likely that some local environmental factor creeps into your binary packages, or is silently relied upon to produce a successful build. * Testability - Is there any guarantee that a package's tests have been run during the local build process? I think it's a good thing to enable more packages tests (e.g. through dh_auto_tests or DEP 8 tests), so ensuring that DEP 8 tests for example are always run before the package is published is, IMO a good thing. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:32:16PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote: > >you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? > > I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when > you should be building locally for testing purposes. > > * Reproducibility - buildds provide a more controlled environment than > developers' machines. [snip] > * Testability - Is there any guarantee that a package's tests have been run > during the local build process? [snip] These both would be provided by throwing away the built component and rebuilding in a closed environment, which is (I believe) the current thinking of the best way forward. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
