Hi,
Chipping in late... sorry for that.
2011/6/7 Don Armstrong :
> 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
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 18:11]:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]:
> > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> > > > those cases you mention
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]:
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> > > those cases you mentioned.
> >
> > Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, bu
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> > those cases you mentioned.
>
> Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, but they should be
> followed immediately by a binNMU. [
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> those cases you mentioned.
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 pack
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 19:38:03 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Are you saying they cannot be bootstrapped with older versions (which
> are already in the archive)??!
By definition if they need to be manually bootstrapped it's because
their build dependencies are not available. The usual cases for that
a
On 06/06/2011 10:16 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:20:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
want source only uploads or
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:03:00 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-06-06, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I think this was mentioned in some previous incarnation of this
> > discussion, but throwing away debs unconditionally, or at least w/o
> > having a way to specify they must not be thrown away is go
On 2011-06-06, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> - There seems to be consensus to go ahead with throw-away debs; they
>> require a bit of work though so either be patient or, better,
>> volunteer with FTP masters to help out with the implementation of the
>> remaining bits.
> I think this was mentione
Hi!
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:20:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
> > > want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
> > > There's
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 17.04.2011, 11:20 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> - There seems to be consensus to go ahead with throw-away debs; they
> require a bit of work though so either be patient or, better,
> volunteer with FTP masters to help out with the implementation of the
> remaining b
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - going ahead with throw away debs seems to be largely uncontroversial;
> can we haz zem please? :-)
Will that throw away Arch: all packages as well? If there are no
technical issues/implementation missing with this (somebody
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
> > want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
> > There's not entire agreement amongst the ftpmasters about this (I err
> > on the sid
[ Bcc:-ing ftpmasters ]
Time to wrap up the current state of this discussion, at least as far as
I see it.
- going ahead with throw away debs seems to be largely uncontroversial;
can we haz zem please? :-)
- there seems to be no substantial objections either on the fact the
source only uploa
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 30.03.2011, 16:18 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> The main use case I've seen mentioned on list to favor source only
> uploads over throw away debs is that of "low bandwidth" or "bandwidth
> limits". Most likely, that use case applies to very few people and the
> vast majo
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: throw away debs and source only uploads"):
> Most uploads are done using dput or dupload. We could add code to them
> to verify that there's binaries corresponding to the source that is
> about to be built.
We could have the archive scripts in
Le Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> Regarding source only upload, well, it's tricky. There is the usual
> tension about the principle desire of trusting every DD to do the right
> thing and the reality-check observation that enabling people to upload
> only s
Paul Wise writes:
> I definitely agree we want to throw away developer-built debs (arch all
> & arch any) in almost all situations.
> I don't think I would want the lintian solution for source-only uploads,
> I would prefer something on a per-upload basis that requires an explicit
> human decisi
I definitely agree we want to throw away developer-built debs (arch
all & arch any) in almost all situations.
I don't think I would want the lintian solution for source-only
uploads, I would prefer something on a per-upload basis that requires
an explicit human decision per-upload rather than some
On ke, 2011-03-30 at 17:33 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Someone (I forget who) previously suggested that a source-only changes
> file should have to be accompanied by a build log. This would need a
> bit of infrastructure to file the build log away.
Most uploads are done using dput or dupload. W
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
> Regarding source only upload, well, it's tricky. There is the usual
> tension about the principle desire of trusting every DD to do the right
> thing and the reality-check observation that enabling people to upload
> only s
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
> The above is just an idea, little more than a brain-dump, for
> finding a compromise among the real needs of people with bandwidth
> problem and the social issues revolving around developer
> sloppiness.
[...]
I expect par
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:37:05PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
> Ok, the situation here is the following:
Thanks a lot for taking the time of clarifying.
> The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
> want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
> Ther
23 matches
Mail list logo
