On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:04:49AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > So, in the interest of proposing a (hopefully) useful alternative, which > doesn't cause 11 buildd failures because of a flat-out binary-less upload > policy: > > [ Proposal - capitalized words should be considered to have RFC-style ] > [ meanings, because I want to be clear and I'm sure this would be ] > [ rewritten before going into any actual policy. ] > > Uploads to the archive MAY contain compiled package files for any of the > currently supported architectures; they SHOULD (MUST?) contain at least one > full set of architecture-specific package files. > > Uploads MUST NOT contain architecture-independant package files; for > each upload, one build daemon will be selected to build and upload the > architecture-independant packages, in the same general manner as building > the architecture-dependant packages for architectures which were not > uploaded (this is not guaranteed to occur on the same run as a build of any > architecture-dependant packages; it is not even guaranteed to occur on the > same build daemon). > > [ End ] This is based on the assumption that a given buildd has a better chance of being "valid" than the maintainer's workstation. I see no reason to believe that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp7kV5Gym6K8.pgp
Description: PGP signature