On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:41:57PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.res.in> ha scritto: > > I was wondering how to interpret the GR altering upload rules > > (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002) in practical terms. > > This is the relevant bit, I think: > > /--- > | Text > | > | Choice 1. > | The actual text of the resolution is as follows. Please note that > | this does not include preludes, prologues, any preambles to the > | resolution, post-ambles to the resolution, abstracts, fore-words, > | after-words, rationales, supporting documents, opinion polls, > | arguments for and against, and any of the other important material > | you will find on the mailing list archives. Please read the > | debian-vote mailing list archives for details. > | > | General Resolution: Altering package upload rules > | > | The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to > | perform combined source and binary packages uploads should be > | allowed to perform binary-only packages uploads for the same set > | of architectures. > \--- > > But... where is the "actual text of the resolution" mentioned? I can't even > find that. It's "as follows", meaning it's the paragraph directly after that one. In other words, it's the one you also quoted. > > I suppose this means that one can upload a <pkg-ver>_multi.changes > > file containing <pkg-ver>_<arch>.deb for multiple values > > of <arch> providing one has access to all these architectures. No. Whether that is possible is a technical thing. It only says that the fact that I am allowed to upload a source+some_arch package means that I should also be allowed to do a some_arch bin-only upload. > > Does it also mean that one can (later) do a binary-only upload > > of a <pkg-ver>_<arch>.changes providing that the package > > has not yet been built on the buildd's for <arch>? (Providing > > that one is building from the same sources, of course!) Yes, it effectively means that developers should be allowed to use their own machines as buildds if they want. > But I'd like to know where is the full text of the GR (or probably I'm > just missing the obvious location). You quoted it. It wasn't very long. :-) > (I'm CCing you because you said you're not subscribed; please tell me if you > wish otherwise) I told mutt to do a list-reply, and appearantly there were no headers telling it to keep that Cc, so I'll assume he's reading the archives (as he said). :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature