mdz at ubuntu.com
Wed Nov 25 11:08:12 GMT 2009
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 04:10:57PM -0600, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.11.2009 08:58, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:42:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:52:58PM -0600, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>> We should be a little careful about how we phrase our commitment here.
> >>>> As yet, we don't have the capability to do binary-only rebuilds on a
> >>>> single architecture, so the only way to rebuild all armel binaries would
> >>>> be to reupload every source package in the archive. This is a pretty
> >>>> good way to lose Ubuntu mirrors, and in the past we've decided that we
> >>>> didn't want to do that after all.
> >>>> I think it should be adequate to identify a core set of packages and
> >>>> ensure that all of those get rebuilt, either during the initial merge
> >>>> from Debian or separately.
> >>> I realize we've been conservative about this in the past, and for good
> >>> reason, but I think there are risks to this approach as well. Unless we
> >>> rebuild everything, we don't know if it builds and works with the new
> >>> compilation defaults.
> >> If this is the main concern, then I think we're much better served by an
> >> archive test rebuild that uses its own output, since this lets us rebuild
> >> everything without a need for per-package human intervention. To do a full
> >> archive rebuild, someone will have to do a sourceful upload of each package,
> >> which I don't think makes sense if the goal is only to test the toolchain
> >> changes.
> > A test rebuild, as I understand it has been done in the past, will not tell
> > us whether the software works, only whether it builds. Testing the
> > toolchain requires functionally testing its output as well, not just the
> > toolchain itself, no?
> except for packages where a testsuite is run during the package build. but yes,
> it would be good to keep the packages built and build a CD from these packages
> and test this one as well.
If I understand correctly, you're suggesting:
* Test rebuild the archive
* Save the packages
* Build a CD from those packages
* Test the CD
Instead, I'm proposing:
* Rebuild the packages in the archive
Isn't that much simpler and more effective?
More information about the ubuntu-devel