Hi, Chipping in late... sorry for that.
2011/6/7 Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org>: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote: >> > Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, but they should be >> > followed immediately by a binNMU. [Are there any cases where we >> > wouldn't want to rebuild the package after it was bootstrapped?] >> There are cases where porters need to upload, because of "funny" >> issues. Or hand-builds within sane buildd chroots where the buildd >> software refuses. Or similar. (I think I did less than 10 such >> uploads recently.) > Ok. Am I correct that these odd cases are bugs which should be fixed? > > If so, it seems reasonable to queue a binNMU, and then file bugs > appropriately if it failed. FWIW, there are corner cases, besides cyclic build dependencies were a bootstrap is needed. Some emulators might need some ROM code compiled on one architecture to be run on another architecture. I have also attended some requests where people was wanting to access porter boxes to hand-build packages, IIRC, mlton compiler was one of such cases. Having said that I believe our build daemon infrastructure is quite good, but still there are several corner cases where manual uploads are needed and there is nothing bad about it, even policy is not against that. If ever consider source-only uploads, please make an exception to the rule to allow corner cases like the ones discussed, some to be followed by binNMU, some others not to be followed by binNMU. Best regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. <free spam> -- Would you like to make a donation for Debian Conference? ** http://debconf11.debconf.org/payments.xhtml ** </free spam> -- 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/BANLkTikafaw-Br0B4M=_n+t7vevjtrk...@mail.gmail.com
