> But my point was: if we're going to be dropping the uploaded binary in the
> first
> place, why do we have to upload it? Source-only uploads would make so much
> more
> sense.
Only theoretical. Practical it would mean we will have many more build
failures.
> The only argument I have seen for binary uploads is to ensure that DDs have
> built the package prior to uploading it. But as someone else pointed out
> earlier
> in the thread, we seem to be trusting DDs a lot in other aspects, so why not
> trust that they test-build packages prior to uploading them as well?
And we trust people to know their way around open source and see whats
clearly non-free. Or incompatible licenses (to a point). Yet, we have
MANY rejects from NEW for even very simple to spot issues.
Trust may work - but it has to be earned. From a rough guess, I would
trust around 10 to 20% of our uploaders to do it right most of the
time.[1]
For some more deep insight you might want to talk to Ubuntu people. They
do allow source-only uploads, and I seem to remember them having written
that it lead to lots of useless uploads that just can't have been tested.[2]
[1] And that doesn't mean that I think 80 or 90% of DDs are
stupid/brainless idiots. (That number is smaller). But it is *WAY*
to easy and convinient to go "ah, just upload this, I think it
works, no time for testing now", when you can do it. And this will
happen.
[2] I am not an ubuntu person. This is from reading stuff in mailing
lists and on irc and my memory might be wrong. Go to them to get a
definite say.
--
bye, Joerg
Flanders has cooties … Flanders has cooties … Flanders has cooties …
--
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/87txtpj9pz....@gkar.ganneff.de
