Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?
"Pierre Habouzit" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
[🔎] email@example.com">news:[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org...
Human error, or poluted chroot/compilation env is more likely to happen
on the developper machine than in a buildd. Maybe this has already been
discussed once, but I think that binary uploaded packages (except the
binary NMU's which are quite an exception) should be tagged as
"uploaded" (in opposition with "build by buildd" aka "built"), and
should be queued in the buildd's with a very low prioirity so that it
won't hurt the current flow of packages, but would detect some FTBFS
I planned to offer a very similar proposal.
My suggestion was to allow Source-only, but have it revokable per-user to
cover cases of abuse (developer keeps uploading broken packages, especially
if they are libraries).
Have the prefered method of upload be source+1 uploaded binary. The uploaded
build ensures that the package is available immediately (for at least one
all uploaded binaries would be placed in the buildd queue at a very low
priority, probably the lowest priority. This would ensure that the backage
does build correctly on a clean system. IFF the build on the buildd succedes
the binary package coukl perhaps be replaced with the one from the buildd.
(This is likely one of the more controversial points, so I leave it up to
discussion should anybody even consider implementing this.)