On 21/10/2012 05:17, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10:02AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >>>>>> I also think allowing source-only uploads makes for easier contributions, >>>>>> and thus hopefully more contributions. >>>>> Why would it be easier? Surely we still want people to build packages first to >>>>> ensure that we don't needlessly get FTBFS bugs. >>>> Because binary packages are big, and uploading them reliably from a region with >>>> crappy internet access sucks, especially when trying to upload them over SFTP. >>>> Honestly, if we're not going to be using these, why upload them? It's a >>>> pointless waste of bandwidth. >>>> >>> Dropping the uploaded binary and rebuilding it after upload doesn't >>> necessarily mean that we allow uploading a source-only upload. I think >>> it would be a good thing to continue to require source + binary. What >>> would be even better, would be to rebuild, and if there's a difference >>> with what was uploaded (for example, calculated library dependencies), >>> then reject the upload. >>> >>> The main point of dropping uploaded binary, IMO, is to make sure that >>> the binary is built with the correct library currently in SID (not >>> everyone uses pbuilder / cowbuilder, and mistakes can happen). >> >> But my point was: if we're going to be dropping the uploaded binary in the first >> place, why do we have to upload it? Source-only uploads would make so much more >> sense. > There are two main arguments: "why should we upload binaries if they will > be discarded anyway" and "if we allow source-only uploads people will > upload packages that weren't tested to be buildable". > Please don't repeat these arguments, it's pointless. Please. Great, so let's just leave it at a stalemate and not get anything done. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature