Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Philipp Kern <tr...@philkern.de> writes: > >> On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: >>> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd >>> it was built. >> That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are >> trusted (the same as for autosigning) it would also be easy to argue that >> setting up some kind of collective protected repository for sharing among >> the buildd would not be totally insane. But then, just implement >> autosigning, >> get rid of that step and reuse autobuilding accepted, or however it's called >> nowadays. >> >> Kind regards, >> Philipp Kern > > When autosigning came up in the past the argument given against was > that buildd admins do some quality control on the packages. They > notice when the buildds goes haywire and screws up builds. With > autosigning you can easily get 200 totaly broken debs into the archive > because the buildd had a broken debhelper or something.
With autosigning these 200 could as easily get fixed. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org