Bug#642341: I think it can be improved
On Jue 26 Ene 2012 17:28:26 Anton Gladky escribió: Hi! As I understand, the only reason to have an arch-dependent package is to get logs and report them later to upstream. I'll rather think that no, the actual idea is to be sure eigen is ok in each arch. The possible solution (quick and dirty) is to make a 2 uploads: 1) arch-dependent to test the package and get logs; 2) arch-indep to have it for normal use. Definitely no. Imagine you upload an arch-indep package and then something changes in the toolchain wich make the tests fail (not necessarily with a FTBFS). If you run the tests and any of them fails, the package FTBFS and thus the mainatiner gets warned. -- Simulations are not data. In God we trust, all the others must supply data. Walter Opyd, Show Me The Data IEEE Spectrum's reader's comments, http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov04/4004 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#642341: I think it can be improved
Hi! As I understand, the only reason to have an arch-dependent package is to get logs and report them later to upstream. The possible solution (quick and dirty) is to make a 2 uploads: 1) arch-dependent to test the package and get logs; 2) arch-indep to have it for normal use. Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qt-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALF6qJkwW_byqdc89yOzb-xaSqARRLK+qgvur=nmkbk1ieq...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#642341: I think it can be improved
Hi! After reading this bug report, I started thinking of better ways to solve this problem. Then I continued reading debian-devel@l.d.o and found out [0], wich is, I think, a very similar problem. I think that the proposals in [1] are indeed better solutions than tagging this as wontfix: 1) run the tests during build and include the results 2) include the test suite to be run on the users system 3) provide a little script to run the test suite and to compare the results with the results generated by the buildd. Taking either (1) or (2) would be fine, (1) and (2) sounds very fine and the three of them excellent (although maybe too much work). With this, libeigen2-dev can be switched back to arch-independent, become nicer with multiarch (at least I expect that) and test suites being provided. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00130.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00511.html Kinds regards, Lisandro. -- I am two fools, I know, for loving, and for saying so. John Donne Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
