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

Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time
though, but I've been told several times that I'll be an old DD before
it gets a chance to be changed. I guess you can call it historical.

The most precise reference to this issue it comes to my mind is:

In that mail it is well explained (or at least, it is explained in a way
I agree with) why we should require *also* binary packages to be
uploaded. However, it is not well motivated IMO why we shouldn't, for
example, upload them and throw them away afterwards (see footnote [4],
with which I personally disagree). The point of not having resources I'm
quite sure can be mitigated.


Thanks - I have read the whole http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00760.html thread now, as well as have skimmed the debian-mentors thread another posted here.

I agree whole-heartedly with your position, which has been described by others here on debian-mentors and on debian-devel. I think "Require binaries and throw them away" is a very good strategy. It seems there is fairly wide consensus that having the buildds build every package is a good thing.

Have you considered making a General Resolution on the topic to create a policy that allows the buildds to build every package?

I realize that the "arch: all" packages would need technical attention before the policy can be realized in practice, and there may be other small technical issues to work out, but I imagine there are solutions to those issues.

-- Asheesh.

It is not a good omen when goldfish commit suicide.

Reply to: