Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org> wrote:
> 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.
IMHO it would be better to let the buildds rebuild the package against
the testing suite (as opposed to unstable) as a last requirement for
the package to enter testing. But this of course means even more
complex buildd setup and probably more need for hinting.
--
Jens Peter Secher.
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_.
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
Reply to: