On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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].
And you rebuild every package on it ? I don't know, most debian machines
are on 100Mb/s links, and the smallest one are 1.5Mb/s links. I only
have 512/128 Ko/s, not very much. And beside, i switch off my box for
the night, since it is noisy and power hungry.
> > > 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).
Sure, sure.
> > > 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.
Sure, but it could be fixed easily by adding a new machine if nothing
else. If there is a will to implement this, then solution can be found.
> 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.
Or it might in the future.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
