Re: Build logs from local builds
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:45:57AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>> Personally, I think that the extreme trade-off of making source upload
>> the default (which seems to be what you are arguing for) would be too
>> risky in term of degraded package quality. Look for the "FTBFS" string
>> in the current RC bug list, do you think the number of occurrences we
>> have now would decrease implementing such a proposal?
> Hi all,
> my gut feeling (but maybe I start to sound like a broken disk) is that most
> “FTBFS” and RC bugs that stay unfixed are more the signature of abandonned
> packages than sloppy maintainers.
> Source uploads are a missing tool in our box, and it is a pity that we do not
> allow them because we fear that a significant number of DDs would misuse it.
> (And let's remember, the average DD is a MIA DD). Source uploads would be a
> nice alternative to binNMUs for mid-scale rebuild efforts, where binNMU is too
> unclean (no trace in the package history, no 10-day waiting period in Unstable,
> and difficult to track because half of our infrastructure seem to ignore them
> (see http://packages.debian.org/sid/r-cran-epibasix for instance).
There is apparently way too few people interested in source only uploads
as there is apparently noone interested in setting up a build machine to
make this happen.
I think it's very wrong to ask core teams to lower the standards of
possible package uploads while noone invests time to create a building
machine that would make source-only uploads possible, even with the
current rules in place. Obviously there are some details regarding
building of the Arch: all packages and how the signing and uploading
would work that would need some effort, though it should not be that