On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 01:32:24PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > On 04-08-2024 13:22, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The question would be whether you want to enforce it in Britney, > > which basically implies that Autobuild: should default to yes in > > non-free-firmware. > > I see this as a rephrasing of the discussion, so I can only agree that > that's the question. > > > You could ask on debian-devel whether there are any potential use cases > > in non-free-firmware where this might be problematic. > > With main we also just decided to do it, with the possibility to have > packages hinted through. I'm don't see how it could be problematic, unless > you mean that asking for an exception is problematic already. I already made > a mental note to announce this when we deploy it, so it doesn't come as a > surprise for those following announcements. But maybe you're having a > different angle in mind?
1. non-free defaults to "Autobuild: no" for legal reasons[1] 2. some packages in non-free have build dependencies that are in non-free or not in Debian at all 3. an "Autobuild: no" package in non-free might download the contents from the internet during the build What I have in mind is whether it can be made a requirement that all packages in non-free-firmware must be legally and technically buildable on the buildds, like in main. And then have the Autobuild default changed first before any change to Britney. "building" would of course usually be "copy blobs from sources to binary package". Britney enforcing source-only uploads in a section with "Autobuild: no" default would require a human at non-f...@buildd.debian.org to manually approve every package before it can enter testing for the first time. > Paul cu Adrian [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd
