Re: Sourceful uploads [Re: Upcoming FTPMaster meeting]
On 2011-02-13, Lars Wirzenius <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On su, 2011-02-13 at 19:13 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> > On su, 2011-02-13 at 18:49 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> >> I don;t think that is a good idea, there are way too many people not building
>> >> and testing their packages properly already, we don't want to give that work to
>> >> the buildd-admins...
>> > That's something I don't understand. If I upload a broken package, why
>> > should it be the buildd admin's job to deal with it? Should not I get
>> > notified of the error, and told to fix it?
>> I guess the notifying is what would become the buildd admin's job...
> Why is this a manual job, rather than automated?
Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed
to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically
sent to the maintainer.)
>> If people want to not have to build and upload binary packages, they
>> would better invest their time in setting up a central service that
>> would build for them and would help in uploading succesful builds
>> instead of complaining about thrown away binary packages IMHO.
> I thought this was the purpose of the existing buildd network.
I agree with you. I don't see much sense in having a separate set of trusted
machines. (And I don't think it's easy to setup such infrastructure
currently and honestly sign the result as a user.)
But then I'm all for source-only uploads. If somebody abuses them, they
could be dealt with separately.