Philipp Kern <tr...@philkern.de> writes:
> On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote:
>> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
>> it was built.
>
> That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are
> trusted (the same as for autosigning) it would also be easy to argue that
> setting up some kind of collective protected repository for sharing among
> the buildd would not be totally insane. But then, just implement autosigning,
> get rid of that step and reuse autobuilding accepted, or however it's called
> nowadays.
>
> Kind regards,
> Philipp Kern
When autosigning came up in the past the argument given against was
that buildd admins do some quality control on the packages. They
notice when the buildds goes haywire and screws up builds. With
autosigning you can easily get 200 totaly broken debs into the archive
because the buildd had a broken debhelper or something.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
