Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert 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,
> Is there any quantitative evidence of this, or is it purely anecdotal? I
> guess this is mostly based on the Ubuntu experience, where it was a cause
> for grumbling early in Ubuntu's history that people were uploading
> completely untested packages and causing problems, but I'm not sure that
> this is a significant problem in Ubuntu today; I think packages in Ubuntu
> are at least as likely to FTBFS because of either skew between the archive
> and the set of packages being tested with (which is a problem that will
> affect Debian as well) or because the package has been imported from Debian
> in an unbuildable state (which points to a latent FTBFS bug in Debian).
> I'm not asserting that this problem is *not* significant, I simply don't
> know - and am interested in knowing if anyone has more data on this beyond
> some four-year-old anecdotes. Certainly, Debian with its wider range of
> ports is more likely to run into problems because of this than Ubuntu, and
> so will need to be fairly cautious.
I don't think the number of ports will have any meaning here. If the
package is too broken to build/work on the maintainers architecture it
will most likely be broken on all archs. On the other hand if it works
on the maintainers architecture then testing or no testing makes no
difference to the other ports.
It seems to me the only port that MIGHT suffer quality issues is the
one the maintainer uses. Meaning i386 or amd64 usualy and Ubuntu
already has experience there.