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

Re: Using buildds only

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert <debacle@debian.org> said: 

> Quoting Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>:
>> 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.

> Mandatory, signed build and test logs?  I've no idea...

        UN-sustainable, in my opinion. The minute you add bits that
 make maintainers prove they are  doing something, you enter an
 antagonistic relationship -- and my first inclination was to write up
 a tool to forge  such logs, and uipload that to Debian.

        Secondly, these log generators would have to be done in a
 manner that works with the myriad ways people build packages --
 cvs-buildpackage, svn-buildpackage, arch-buildpackage, chroots,
 pbuilder, pbulder-uml, UML's, and the works.

        So far, we have mandated _how_ people do things, and that is
 why so many ways of doing things have sprung up, and the cross
 pollination of ideas and selection have helped improve the _process_
 of building packages. Mandating process is a regression.


The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: