Archive rebuild proposal for Lucid
mok at bioxray.au.dk
Thu Oct 29 09:25:39 GMT 2009
On 28/10/2009, at 06.31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> My proposal is that once the Lucid toolchain is in place, we do
> archive rebuild test and then do a binary removal of any packages
> that fail
> (modulo not completely breaking the archive and having to
> reboostrap). From
> then on, we could be confident that any package that had a binary
> had built at
> least once during the cycle and should build/be relatively easily
> after release.
> I wouldn't propose removing source, because we want these to get
I think this is a very sensible thing to do. It's been a problem in
karmic that the rebuild happened so late in the cycle; many of the
packages on the FTBFS list had -*ubuntu1 tags, so it would be relevant
to take care of these problems very early on in the cycle, especially
because many of the problems are toolchain related.
In addition, I suggest that the rebuilding script files a bug on LP
when a package FTBFS. This will help us get the problems fixed in the
normal work-flow, and the bug-fix history of the package will be
recorded under +source which will help Debian maintainers and ourselves.
More information about the ubuntu-devel