Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
On Thu 15 Oct 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
>
> > Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right to skip waiting, while
> > a normal NMU does not? Why are they different?
>
> Because I'm not forcing my changes on anyone but the architecture I'm
> uploading for. If I'm wrong in some drastic way, only m68k suffers.
Additionally, a "normal" NMU is to fix generic problems with the workings
of the package itself, not the building process; at least, *I* have never
seen an NMU (with source) done for i386 to fix a build problem.
Hmmm, we should make it policy that i386 packages aren't allowed to be
directly uploaded into Debian; instead, the source should be uploaded,
and then another maintainer (not related in any way to the uploader)
must download the source, build the package, and upload the resulting
binary. If the build fails, either don't upload or upload a complete
NMU with source. That should equalize things between i386 and the rest :-)
Also, the speed at which updates come would be slowed to acceptable
rates...
> > Binary-only and normal NMU's are the same thing,
>
> No they're not. Why do you insist on this obvious falsehood?
IMO the difference is that a binary-only NMU fixes building difficulties,
and a normal NMU fixes the functionality or problems with installing.
A binary-only NMU package should function that same way in all respects
to the original binary.
> > Do you want the ports to remain forever second class citizens, or do you
> > want them to eventually mature to be equal with i386?
>
> Will you please get off your high horse and stop being so incredibly
> condescending? It doesn't help in anyway whatsoever and without some
I have to agree that I fail to see any added value in Joey's comment
here.
> > Broken source package has nothing to do with a port at all.
>
> Of course they bloody do; we have to build them. And the breakage I'm
> talking about, is the sort of breakage which doesn't show up for 99.5%
> of i386/source maintainers.
Precisely; couldn't the QA team check that packages build correctly
for third parties? What's the point of supplying source packages if
they're useless.
> > I mean that we should converge on using the same build environment and build
Source dependencies would be a *big* help.
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Reply to: