On 10/04/2010 06:34 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> (04/10/2010): >> Please try to avoid such language and maybe you could include or >> point to some explanation how the experimental buildds work to avoid >> repeated mistakes? > > Like specifying build dependencies according to what one is needing? > Sounds like NM 101. Like checking a build in a chroot? Sounds like NM > 101 as well.
The checking in a chroot does not work for experimental as that will work fine and fail on the buildd. That's why it's so different... > What about #580743 and #595642? Again experimental-is-so-different's > fault? No. Very much looks like “maintainer”'s being lazy, again and > again. You seem to think the worse while there are quite valid reasons why even when checking in a chroot all of these failures can be explained. That's why I don't like you to use such language, you are scaring contributions away for no good reason at all, on the contrary! Though I do understand that the failures seem obvious and avoidable. But you don't seem to take into account changing contexts nor the special circumstances of the experimental buildds compared to unstable. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
