Re: Using buildds only
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Quoting Matthew Palmer <email@example.com>:
>> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C