@federico I think that creating a sandbox and letting package mantainers decide which code to execute is the way to go.
I don't get how `nimble install` is catching any errors. All the libraries I have written (memo, csvtools, rosencrantz, linalg, spills, teafiles, emmy, nimblas, nimcl, patty) are just that: libraries, with no executable attached. There are some test executables, but since these are tests they are explicitly excluded using `excludeDirs`. I guess most other libraries do this. When you do `nimble install` on one of my libraries, the only action performed is checking out the code and copying some of the files (those not in `excludeDirs`). There is no compilation at all, because there is nothing to compile. Hence there is nothing that can reasonably fail. Still I see that most of the libraries that I have listed above appear failed on the report. I guess that the only way this could possibly happen is a network glitch while checking out github. Probably, this explains most of the errors that appear in the report. Asking mantainers to register and manually submit new packages has another advantage: there is an email to contact someone when the package fails. I get that putting all the necessary infrastructure in place is a lot of work, but it would be much more valuable than doing nimble install
