Re: throw away debs and source only uploads
* Don Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110607 18:11]:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong (email@example.com) [110607 04:25]:
> > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> > > > those cases you mentioned.
> > >
> > > Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, but they should be
> > > followed immediately by a binNMU. [Are there any cases where we
> > > wouldn't want to rebuild the package after it was bootstrapped?]
> > There are cases where porters need to upload, because of "funny"
> > issues. Or hand-builds within sane buildd chroots where the buildd
> > software refuses. Or similar. (I think I did less than 10 such
> > uploads recently.)
> Ok. Am I correct that these odd cases are bugs which should be fixed?
> If so, it seems reasonable to queue a binNMU, and then file bugs
> appropriately if it failed.
It's reasonable to queue a binNMU, but it's not to assume that it's
successful. Or that there might be transient issues, e.g. a hand-build
to just complete the transition to testing, and the next source
version is uploaded directly after the transition and built normally.
Or issues, where we don't need to wait for the binNMU to fail, but
just directly file the bug - of course I'm happy to fail the build by
hand in such cases.
As said, all that are exceptions to the rule.