On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Chow Loong Jin <hyper...@debian.org> [121020 18:10]: > > 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? > > Because trusting someone in one thing is not the same as trusting > someone in another. Trust works best when there is accountablity. > Having the binary file around, even if it is not easily accessible > on some remote archive, noone can claim "I tested this, it just did > work here, something must be different on the buildds" and hope to > get away with it.
How about this then. If and when we start allowing sourceful uploads, the following rules apply: - By default, packages don't need to be accompanied by a binary package (but may be) - If a previous version of a package failed to build from source on, say, more than half our release architectures, the next upload of that package (by the same person) needs to be accompanied by a binary package. I just came up with this, and obviously this would mean some (more) code would need to be written. But I think it could satisfy both sides of the argument. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- 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/20121021070037.ga11...@grep.be