Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Chow Loong Jin <firstname.lastname@example.org> [121020 18:10]:
> > 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?
> Because trusting someone in one thing is not the same as trusting
> someone in another. Trust works best when there is accountablity.
> Having the binary file around, even if it is not easily accessible
> on some remote archive, noone can claim "I tested this, it just did
> work here, something must be different on the buildds" and hope to
> get away with it.
How about this then. If and when we start allowing sourceful uploads, the
following rules apply:
- By default, packages don't need to be accompanied by a binary package
(but may be)
- If a previous version of a package failed to build from source on,
say, more than half our release architectures, the next upload of that
package (by the same person) needs to be accompanied by a binary
I just came up with this, and obviously this would mean some (more) code
would need to be written. But I think it could satisfy both sides of the
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you
to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and
save on postage.