Le Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 04:26:58PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:07:19PM +0000, Roger Leigh a écrit : > > > > While most developers are conscientious enough to make sure their > > packages build, one does see enough crap packages that IMO this > > (minimal) bar should probably be kept. > > I am all for allowing source-only uploads AND requiring from the maintainers a > proper testing of the packages. Having been able to build the package in a > clean chroot is anyway not a reliable proof of testing.
By the way, I just realised that binNMUs directly update the binary packages in Testing, shortcutting the 10 day evaluation period. (See http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/amd64/r-cran-epibasix/download for example, where r-cran-epibasix was only binNMUed five days ago). So being able to do source-only uploads would (will?) have a some advantages for the maintainers who have to do a serie of rebuildings: - They can work independantly. - It is obvious who triggered the rebuild. - The package history is not lost. - The package has more testing. - Builds log are available (at least here they are invisible: https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=r-cran-epibasix). This is of course already doable with source plus binary uploads, but it would be nice to be allowed to save the time of doing a local building, since this the accepted workflow for binNMUs. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
