On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:16:38 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 17:02, Stephen Gran wrote: >> I am sure qemu is very good at what it does, but I do not have >> faith that it can stand in for a real CPU in all the corner cases. >> If Aurelien builds a java package that had previously FTBFS'd, do >> we have any guarantee that it will build natively? How is the >> security team supposed to support that? > On the other hand, I can *currently* upload my own packages as > src+bin with a binary I built inside qemu and no one would ever be > the wiser. There is one distinction: You are responsible for any bugs on your package if your qemu setup is screwed up. However, a buildd operator using qemu is not responsible for bugs filed on the packages created on his set up -- He is not performing an NMU. When I upload a package, either mine, or an NMU, I have to stay engaged -- watch all new bugs, and perhaps re-NMU as needed. My ass is in the sling. Does the buildd operator take similar responsibility for all the packages he uploads? If not, the cases are not similar. manoj -- You are destined to become the commandant of the fighting men of the department of transportation. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]