On 2011-02-13, Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> wrote: > On su, 2011-02-13 at 19:13 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: >> On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> > On su, 2011-02-13 at 18:49 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> >> I don;t think that is a good idea, there are way too many people not >> >> building >> >> and testing their packages properly already, we don't want to give that >> >> work to >> >> the buildd-admins... >> > That's something I don't understand. If I upload a broken package, why >> > should it be the buildd admin's job to deal with it? Should not I get >> > notified of the error, and told to fix it? >> I guess the notifying is what would become the buildd admin's job... > Why is this a manual job, rather than automated?
Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically sent to the maintainer.) >> If people want to not have to build and upload binary packages, they >> would better invest their time in setting up a central service that >> would build for them and would help in uploading succesful builds >> instead of complaining about thrown away binary packages IMHO. > I thought this was the purpose of the existing buildd network. I agree with you. I don't see much sense in having a separate set of trusted machines. (And I don't think it's easy to setup such infrastructure currently and honestly sign the result as a user.) But then I'm all for source-only uploads. If somebody abuses them, they could be dealt with separately. Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnilgbnm.2m0.tr...@kelgar.0x539.de
