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

Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting

Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> writes:

> Hello Joerg,
> thanks for the updates.
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:15, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@ganneff.de> wrote:
> ...
>> source-only uploads
>> -------------------
>> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
>> ftp-team about this matter.  Given that other distros experience has
>> shown that allowing source only uploads results in a huge loss of
>> quality checks and an increased load on the buildds from packages
>> FTBFSing everywhere, some members of the team believe that source+binary
>> uploads should happen as currently,  but that the maintainer built
>> binaries should be rebuilt by the buildds (i.e. be thrown away at accept
>> time).  Other members of the team think that we should allow source-only
>> uploads and that if some people keep uploading packages which FTBFS
>> everywhere (showing a lack of basic testing), this should be dealt with
>> by the project in other ways which are out of the scope of the ftp-team.
>> The current "winning" opinion is to go with the source+throw away
>> binaries route.  We are close to being able to achieve this, it is
>> simply that it has not yet been enabled.  Before any version of this
>> can be enabled, buildd autosigning needs to be implemented in order
>> that dak can differentiate buildd uploads vs maintainer uploads.
>> Provisions have been made in dak for things such as bootstrapping a
>> new architecture where binary uploads from porters may be necessary
>> in order to get going.
> While I like the "source + trow away" solution, I'd also like to ask
> you to please consider some methods to allow the "throw away" step on
> the developer machine, for example having dput/dupload not upload the
> .debs (so .changes still has them listed, but are not actually
> uploaded) and still accepting the upload.
> There are (still) people with slow internet connections or with very
> huge packages, with several binary packages, that would benefit a lot
> with this option.
> Additionally, things like NMUs or QA uploads (so where the tarball is
> not, generally, changed), would reduce to a ".dsc + .diff.gz +
> .changes" file set, that's a lot faster to upload.
> Thanks for considering,

What about Architecture: all? Will they be kept? Is one buildd special
and builds them?

If Architecture: all is kept then maybe allow source+all uploads?


Reply to: