Hi Matthew! Matthew Palmer [2005-08-22 22:22 +1000]: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote: > > Quoting Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>: > > > All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on > > > developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or > > > even > > > possibly experimental or home-modified stuff. > > > > That would be very good, indeed. I am very much in favour of allowing > > only source-only uploads and having all binaries build by the buildds > > only. The argument against it is, that DDs wouldn't check, whether > > the package builds cleanly etc. I think, that this is a poor argument, > > but anyway. > > I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel. > I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to > sustain source-only uploads, honestly. I still think that source-only uploads would be preferable to our current binary uploads. It saves upload bandwith and ensures that packages are built in a clean chroot with the correct toolchain and libraries, rather than on tweaked, outdated, and potentially broken developer machines. It would also ensure the buildability of Arch: all packages (something that is not done at all in Debian now). I really love the source only uploads in Ubuntu, and as far as I can see, we never had a particular problem with this which would have been solved by binary uploads. Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than) a source upload. If a DD uploads a broken package, he should be told so, and we should aim to help him do it better the next time (that's what we do in Ubuntu and it works very well). Thanks for considering, Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature