Op vr 17-10-2003, om 15:12 schreef Sven Luther: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > Please search the list archives for the reasons why source uploads are > > > > not allowed. This has been hashed out before. Highlights: > > > > - it encourages carelessness > > > > - Architecture: all packages would not get built > > > > > > Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the > > > autobuilders building the arch: all stuff. > > > > Feel free to set up one. > > Yeah, sure, not problem, and i will set it up behind my ADSL link, right ?
Why not? That's what I do with my buildd[1].
[...]
> > The reason why source only uploads are bad, is that they encourage bad
> > practice such as people not checking the build. By requiring at least
> > one binary package, we ensure the package can at least be built. That's
> > a good thing, since it saves time otherwise wasted on packages failing
> > to build because the maintainer didn't even bother to test.
>
> Sure, but there where also people who did it after having built their
> packages, to be sure the packages where built in a clean sid
> environment. Also, there may be people who do source only uploads
> because of bandwith concerns. I know i did when i was using a pay per
> minutes 56K modem line, and had to upload multi-megabyte binary
> packages.
No excuse. Upload the source to one of the debian machines, and use
screen(1).
> > I have less problems with the second part of your suggestion ("binary
> > uploads where the binary part is ignored"), as long as it's not so
> > time-consuming that becomes a problem (which I'm afraid is likely to be
> > the case).
>
> Well, most people upload x86 anyway, and to a lesser extent powerpc. I
> doubt any of these arches have problem rebuilding those packages. It is
> not like everyone was uploading m68k or arm.
Are you considering the fact that our current buildd infrastructure
might not cope with the extra amount of packages that would need to be
built? A buildd which has to do almost nothing, such as the i386 one,
may not be prepared to handle the full load of building the archive; in
fact, the i386 buildd is gluck[2], which has more to do than just
autobuilding. Suddenly requesting that gluck be able to handle
autobuilding a full architecture might not be a good idea.
As said, if you can assure that it does not become so a problem in any
way, I don't have a problem with this, but I'll need more than doubts
and assumptions.
[1] 'quickstep'. OK, I admit, it's an m68k one.
[2] last I heard, at least. It might've changed.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on
viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your
addressbook. *now*.
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
