Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV
Hi,
thanks for replying.
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 11:23:33PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:18:04AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
>> >> > It sounds like you stopped the buildd's because you chose to, not
>> >> > because you were told to. You seemed to me to take a few people's
>> >> > discussion as determinative. I have no particular opinion about the
>> >> > substance of the matter, but your action seemed premature to me.
>> >
>> >> No, two quite influencial people said to stop it. Read the thread to
>> >> find out who. The discussions on irc were even more hostile but from
>> >> less important people.
>> >
>> > I'm afraid I didn't see anyone telling you to stop, even upon rereading
>> > the thread; only people expressing concerns. What I did notice was you
>> > curiously overstating the impact of these unofficial builds, to wit:
>>
>> Collin Watson: "I would simply like this practice to stop immediately."
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/08/msg01903.html
>>
>> I interpret that as a polite way of telling me to stop.
>
> Since you quoted me, a point of information: sponsored binary uploads
> are not the same as unofficial buildds, and I was talking strictly about
> the former. If you hadn't quoted the smallest possible part of my mail
> then this would have been obvious to readers. Various people seem to be
> conflating the two issues, though.
Everybody else seems to talk about the later or considers the two to
be equal. I myself fail to see a seperating quality between the two
and I understood your mail as refering to the large quantity of
uploads made from the unofficial buildds in the week(s) before that
mail. I wasn't aware any other sponsored binary uploads where going
on.
What makes the unofficial buildds special? Official Debian source is
build on untrusted hardware under control by an untrusted persons and
a DD blindly signs the changes files mailed to him. That is called a
sponsored binary NMU, right? Binary because it is without source. NMU
because it is not the maintainer uploading (so far as per policy) and
sponsored because it wasn't the DD doing the build.
Is it that the DD has root on the system too? Is it that the package
was build by sbuild? Is it just because a cron job starts buildd
instead of the untrusted person typing debuild? Where do you draw the
line? When does a package become a buildd upload instead of a
sponsored binary upload?
Maybe this was all just a big misunderstanding and you do sound like
it is but then please lets clear this up and record it for the
future. Maybe policy can get an overhaul to classify buildd uploads as
something other than binary NMUs to avoid the confusion currently
going on.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: