On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > At any rate, here are some facts: > - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not) > installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do > with the build system, it's the package.
... but I question that it is a bug that we want to spend time fixing. > - A clean chroot takes time and processing power. You need to drop and > recreate the chroot between builds, upgrade the same Build-Essential > packages every time you do an upgrade, copy the apt cache in and out > of the chroot (or keep downloading the same packages over and over), > and various other things. LVM snapshots fix some, though not all, of > those problems, and introduce a few of their own. > I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the buildd spend > processing power on building packages. Having it fail at producing a > good package because the maintainer didn't do a good enough job is > nothing new -- they do that all the time. I think that the question is whether we would rather have the maintainer spend time fixing those issues, or the buildd spend time dealing with the consequences of using LVM snapshots. I personally think that if we have a way to use CPU time to solve a problem that would require maintainer time otherwise, we should use it. (I am fully aware that putting more load on the buildds might require adding buildds. However, I have the impression that the time required to maintain several identical buildds doesn't grow linearly, so it wouldn't be a too big problem.) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
