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

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

On 21/10/2012 05:17, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> 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.

Great, so let's just leave it at a stalemate and not get anything done.

Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: