Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:45:57AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : >> Personally, I think that the extreme trade-off of making source upload >> the default (which seems to be what you are arguing for) would be too >> risky in term of degraded package quality. Look for the "FTBFS" string >> in the current RC bug list, do you think the number of occurrences we >> have now would decrease implementing such a proposal? > > Hi all, > > my gut feeling (but maybe I start to sound like a broken disk) is that most > “FTBFS” and RC bugs that stay unfixed are more the signature of abandonned > packages than sloppy maintainers. > > Source uploads are a missing tool in our box, and it is a pity that we do not > allow them because we fear that a significant number of DDs would misuse it. > (And let's remember, the average DD is a MIA DD). Source uploads would be a > nice alternative to binNMUs for mid-scale rebuild efforts, where binNMU is too > unclean (no trace in the package history, no 10-day waiting period in > Unstable, > and difficult to track because half of our infrastructure seem to ignore them > (see http://packages.debian.org/sid/r-cran-epibasix for instance).
There is apparently way too few people interested in source only uploads as there is apparently noone interested in setting up a build machine to make this happen. I think it's very wrong to ask core teams to lower the standards of possible package uploads while noone invests time to create a building machine that would make source-only uploads possible, even with the current rules in place. Obviously there are some details regarding building of the Arch: all packages and how the signing and uploading would work that would need some effort, though it should not be that hard AFAICS. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
