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

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

On 20/10/2012 22:38, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 09:56 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> On 17/10/2012 08:36, Russell Coker wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Barry Warsaw<barry@python.org>  wrote:
>>>> I also think allowing source-only uploads makes for easier contributions,
>>>> and thus hopefully more contributions.
>>> Why would it be easier?  Surely we still want people to build packages first to
>>> ensure that we don't needlessly get FTBFS bugs.
>> Because binary packages are big, and uploading them reliably from a region with
>> crappy internet access sucks, especially when trying to upload them over SFTP.
>> Honestly, if we're not going to be using these, why upload them? It's a
>> pointless waste of bandwidth.
> Dropping the uploaded binary and rebuilding it after upload doesn't
> necessarily mean that we allow uploading a source-only upload. I think
> it would be a good thing to continue to require source + binary. What
> would be even better, would be to rebuild, and if there's a difference
> with what was uploaded (for example, calculated library dependencies),
> then reject the upload.
> The main point of dropping uploaded binary, IMO, is to make sure that
> the binary is built with the correct library currently in SID (not
> everyone uses pbuilder / cowbuilder, and mistakes can happen).

But my point was: if we're going to be dropping the uploaded binary in the first
place, why do we have to upload it? Source-only uploads would make so much more

The only argument I have seen for binary uploads is to ensure that DDs have
built the package prior to uploading it. But as someone else pointed out earlier
in the thread, we seem to be trusting DDs a lot in other aspects, so why not
trust that they test-build packages prior to uploading them as well?

Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: