Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: any Free BSD variant?

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:26:49 +0300
Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> wrote:

> Karl Goetz wrote:
> > > Another tangential point: Debian does not support source uploads,
> > 
> > Pardon? Debian does support source uploads, but also allows binary
> > only uploads.
> 
> You are wrong here.  Dak will reject any upload if it has no .debs.
> This means that an Arch:all package you upload is what will go in the
> archive, the mirrors, and all people's machines, and the same holds
> for an Arch:any package for the architecture where you built it.
> Anything else gets auto-built on the buildds with dpkg-buildpackage
> -B.

I stand corrected - this is quite... disturbing ... since I've always
understood that all packages could be built on buildds.

> > Packages should always be tested before upload, wether they be
> > binary or source only.
> 
> Right, but because the Ubuntu build framework does not enforce this,
> people often make a change to the source, run dpkg-buildpackage -S and
> upload.  Sometimes (seldom) this leads to a FTBFS, sometimes to a
> binary package that is not entirely functional.  The point was that
> this stuff is in many cases untested by the person who does the
> upload.

I'm not sure how a framework can enforce testing. It can enforce
building (require the binary .changes file when doing the source
upload), but how to force testing?

> > Then again, I'm not entirely sure what your 'not something
> > unmanageable, especially nowadays.' refers to exactly.
> 
> Having every package produce a -dbg companion with detached debugging
> symbols comes with certain costs, e.g. far more CPU cycles for britney
> (the testing migration script in Debian) and more space/load in the
> archive and the mirror framework.  I said that nowadays this should
> not be a big concern.  Of course, it is for users (including me on
> some ancient hosts), so the user must have the option not to install
> such packages, if he wishes so for whatever reason.

Depending where in the world you are, Internet connectivity can be
quite expensive still. I do agree that debug packages should always be
available.

> But by default, they should be there, just like they are for things I
> build manually (unless I explicitly say I do not want them).

I don't agree they should be installed by default though (and I think
we are unlikely to agree).
A seperate CD1 with debug symbols, or an option to install with debug
would make sense, but I don't feel its appropriate by default.
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature