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. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature