On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:02:57AM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Pierre Habouzit said: > > > > I also addressed that part in my mail. The arguments I've read against > > "rogue" buildds are threefold: > > * security (I _really_ think it's nonsense, as it's not less secure > > than the usual DD's uploads, which I tried to prove) ; > > > > [0] in fact I'd even say that if it's done at the "industrial" scale, > > there is a lot of chances the person doing it has built an > > automatized system based on sbuild or another very used system > > anyway. > > I see that someone else has mentioned reproducibility, so we can leave > that part of the argument there. Such an argument is pro source-only uploads if I'm not mistaken ;) > One thing that strikes me is that in all of the emails so far, > everyone is ignoring that this whole thing started because Aurelien > decided to start autobuilding packages in qemu. That's not what justified the alpha problem afaict, was it ? > I agree that the way the restriction was implemented was odd, but I can > see the point of it. I doubt that the occasional one off binNMU is > going to have very much affect on the quality of the archive overall, > but I do have serious misgivings about people setting up rogue > autobuilders on a whim. Well, now is the point where the discussion will go about buildd's admin reliability I suppose ... Btw, I wonder, why rebuilds, putting packages in dep-wait and any other repetitive tasks need _the_ buildd admin to be done ? Why can't any maintainer do that with a proper signed mail ? _that_ would save a lot of burden wouldn't it ? Especially since I'm told that the interaction with the buildd's is already mail driven... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpu9hhn25XVg.pgp
Description: PGP signature