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

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages



> So yes, this is something that should be accounted for if Debian moves to a
> model where binary uploads are discarded and rebuilt.  However, I suspect
> that for all the sensible cases, the proposal to add staged-build metadata
> (for bootstrapping circular build-dependencies on new ports) would be
> sufficient to make this problem go away too.  But I'm a lot less concerned
> about the kinds of self-build-depending packages whose names are frequently
> taken in vain (raise your hand if you've ever tried to fix an RC bug in
> mlton).

As one thing to keep in mind - we have an acl structure in dak.
Currently it reads something like

all DD keys are allowed all uploads.
all DM keys are allowed their own uploads according to DM rights.
all buildd keys are allowed binary only uploads for their arch.

It is not impossible nor excluded to have a set of rules like

all DD keys are allowed all uploads, binaries dropped
all DM keys are allowed their own uploads according to DM rights,
                        binaries dropped
all buildd keys are allowed binary only uploads for their arch.

one of

some DDs may upload $listofpackages including binaries.
all DDs may upload $listofpackages including binaries.

where listofpackages is those insane "needthemself" ones.
And could be by DD.

However far we want to drive this, we can.

-- 
bye, Joerg
[...]that almost anything related to "intellectual property" is idiotic
by it's nature, [...]


Reply to: