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

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 13:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> example, could be a better idea than to impose some arbitrary
> restriction that has no real value; buildd hosts don't necessarily need
> to be part of the debian.org network to be able to do what they need to
> do.

Do you think it might be better have a trusted builder keyring, with
strict rules on what makes a trusted builder (it seems rather a
different set of issues to that addressed by the DD criterion)? 

Rob Taylor

Reply to: