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

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10:02AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin 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
> sense.
There are two main arguments: "why should we upload binaries if they will
be discarded anyway" and "if we allow source-only uploads people will
upload packages that weren't tested to be buildable".
Please don't repeat these arguments, it's pointless. Please.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: