Hi,
what if we stick to our principle "the maintainer knows best" and
provide the infrastructure for source only uploads, but leave it to the
maintainer whether he wants to do so. Some here think buildd'ed packages
are better, some think their building the packages themselves is better.
So just the former one do so and see what is used more, what stands the
test. Eventually, we might agree on one or the other way, but there is
actually no need for that.
Compare it to the different ways of building a package (self-made
debian/rules, dh_helper, cdbs) - it's all about choice and preference.
with regards,
nomeata
Am Mi, den 15.10.2003 schrieb W. Borgert um 19:48:
> Hi,
>
> a few days ago, I uploaded an emacs mode package (all) source only
> w/o problems to ftp-master. Today, a source only upload was rejected.
> Why? I think, we should get rid of binary uploads...
>
> Cheers!
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z?
Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge.
Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil