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

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

> 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
> sense.

Only theoretical. Practical it would mean we will have many more build

> 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?

And we trust people to know their way around open source and see whats
clearly non-free. Or incompatible licenses (to a point). Yet, we have
MANY rejects from NEW for even very simple to spot issues.
Trust may work - but it has to be earned. From a rough guess, I would
trust around 10 to 20% of our uploaders to do it right most of the

For some more deep insight you might want to talk to Ubuntu people. They
do allow source-only uploads, and I seem to remember them having written
that it lead to lots of useless uploads that just can't have been tested.[2]

[1] And that doesn't mean that I think 80 or 90% of DDs are
    stupid/brainless idiots. (That number is smaller). But it is *WAY*
    to easy and convinient to go "ah, just upload this, I think it
    works, no time for testing now", when you can do it. And this will

[2] I am not an ubuntu person. This is from reading stuff in mailing
    lists and on irc and my memory might be wrong. Go to them to get a
    definite say.

bye, Joerg
Flanders has cooties … Flanders has cooties … Flanders has cooties …

Reply to: