On Friday 09 February 2007 05:52, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > The use case I imagine at this point is that a maintainer uploads a > library package src+bin (e.g. src+amd64) for his private arch, and after > weeks he notices, that it still has not been built on e.g. sparc yet. So > he decides to start his spare Ultra 1 workstation, builds the package in > his custom environment and uploads it. My question to this use case: > > What happens with the "lost" buildlogs? Is there any possibility for a > maintainer who depends on this library to check the build logs for this > package on this particular architecture? Is the maintainer somehow > encouraged or force by policy to publish his buildlogs? Does is this different from wanting to check the amd64 build log, but it can't be done because that was the initial architecture upload? This scenerio is basically just equivalent to a src+amd64+sparc upload instead of a src+sparc or src+amd64 upload. Already maintainers can basically upload src+(any architecture of their choosing) for each version. In fact, I occasionally upload my own packages as src+i386, but other times as src+amd64. If I had a sparc machine, I'd probably upload my packages as src+sparc every once in a while just for fun and profit. If we think that's a bad idea, we should propose that maintainers must do src+bin uploads but that the bin will be discarded and rebuild for *every* architecture. To my knowledge, this has been discussed many times before but never proposed officially. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpGb71c4BVd0.pgp
Description: PGP signature