On Friday 04 February 2005 14:14, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 13:26 +0100, Frederik Dannemare wrote: > > On Friday 04 February 2005 02:30, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > Op do, 03-02-2005 te 15:44 +0100, schreef Frederik Dannemare: > > > > > > which > > > > > > requires no imprimatur from the DPL, before you start > > > > > > throwing packages that have never even been tested by their > > > > > > maintainer at us faster than we already get them. > > > > > > > > > > I see your point if it is really the case that uploads are > > > > > being done without proper testing from the maintainer > > > > > himself/herself. > > > > > > > > His point is still valid even if all maintainers do proper > > > > testing. You can't be expected as a maintainer to be able to > > > > test /every/ possible or impossible situation in which a > > > > package could be used. And then I'm not even talking about > > > > packages that should conflict with eachother but don't, because > > > > the maintainer of the new package didn't know that a file in > > > > his package happens to have the same name as a different file > > > > in a completely unrelated package... > > > > > > What I know is that every time an ftpmaster processes a batch of > > > NEW packages, a percentage of them wind up in testing with > > > serious bugs for failing to declare build-dependencies, and then > > > the release team has to track these bugs. > > > > > > Since the testing scripts have no way to distinguish an > > > architecture-specific package from a broken binary that only > > > builds on the maintainer's system, the only strategies I can > > > think of off-hand that would be effective at reducing this > > > problem are to disallow all binary uploads from maintainers, > > > > [ snip ] > > > > Yes, much better to have everything built by the buildd in a clean > > env, IMO. This would be on my wishlist for post-sarge. This topic > > was also discussed (for other reasons, though; security concerns, I > > think it was) last summer. > > I think this is an awful idea. This means that developers will no > longer test their packages before uploading, [ snip ]
I surely hope they would still do so. Another option could simply be to proceed with the current way of uploading - but then let the buildd rebuild the uploaded binary. Or is that somehow not feasible? As of right now it is troublesome to build e.g. gl stuff as a maintainer if you are using the nvidia drivers on your system. I'm sure there are many, many other scenarios to choose from. Best regards, -- Frederik Dannemare | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=Frederik+Dannemare http://frederik.dannemare.net | http://www.linuxworlddomination.dk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
