Re: Source-only uploads
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Jonathan Hseu wrote:
> Last I asked on #debian-devel, source-only uploads aren't allowed (as in, you
> can't just upload the orig.tar and the diff. With auto-builders in place, is
> there any reason why?
They are allowed. See pine.
> There are reasons why source-only uploads should be preferred, some being:
I consisder these reasons they should not be allowed.
> - The package can be compiled on boxes that are up-to-date with bugfixes in gcc
> and other Build-Depends. I personally don't upgrade my sid box that often
> (I currently have to upgrade 843 new packages, install 33 new ones, remove 17
> for a dist-upgrade, understand why? :)
So, the maintainer doesn't know if his package works with the current set of
software in debian? This seems like a loss.
> - Wouldn't the binaries be more trusted if they came from auto-builders anyways?
> So that way a maintainer can't just stick something in there that's not in the
> source code.
I would rather have the original upload be a binary one. I trust this more,
as the maintainer has more likely installed what he has just built, and tested
it out. No such assurance happens with a source only upload.
> Binary uploads should be allowed for packages that don't have source code at
> all or ones that depend on themselves for bootstrapping.
For packages that don't have source this is the only way, so your argument
means absolutely nothing.