Re: Non-Intel package uploads by maintainer
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > > > The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package. It will
> > > > > build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends. With proper
> > > > > versions of all tools.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you upload binaries you get the usual bugs of missing
> > > > > build-depends, wrong versions of tools or libraries and so on. Just
> > > > > because you had them installed.
> > > >
> > > > In his case, most of these will be noticed by the remaining nine buildds,
> > > > anyway. </nitpick>
> > >
> > > But the uploaded binaries will still be in the archive with broken
> > > sources.
> >
> > Er, so? He'll still get RC bugs filed, and will have to upload another
> > revision, which would be fixed.
>
> Imagine for eample the case where the sources are missing files, as
> happens too often. Then the binary is in violation of the GPL.
>
> Not good. So why not let the autobuilder do their job for all archs.
Fifteen minutes after the upload, the first buildds will get to it, and
hours later, the first buildd maintainers will get to it, and the violation
could be fixed shortly after.
Encourage source-only uploads has a worse downside, because not having at
least one binary uploaded takes away the slim hope we now have, that the
maintainer has actually tested the binary and saw that it works.
Accidental temporary license violation, or an accidental temporary major
breakage for users -- I'd choose the former.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: