[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages and signatures



On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:12:12PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>  Yes, it's very reasonable (but all signatures should be from autobuilders,
> and no developer should be allowed to upload binaries, but that's another
> flamewar I won't start now =) ).

Before you go starting flamewars about it, you'll probably need to do
a chunk of work to make sure the autobuilders (and the archive) can
actually cope with this...

(At the moment source only uploads don't work, the autobuilders may or
may not be able to correctly determine when a source only upload needs
to be built, the i386 autobuilder probably couldn't cope, only finding
out that your package doesn't build at all a day after you upload it is
probably fairly awkward...)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgppxFjPD50LD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: