Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: source-only uploads"):
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:47:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Just yesterday I completely broke a key package used to build
> > many Java packages, and I couldn't even rebuild it to fix the issue.
>
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:18:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: source-only uploads"):
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:47:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > > Just yesterday I completely broke a key package used to build
> > &g
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: source-only uploads"):
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:47:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Just yesterday I completely broke a key package used to build
> > many Java packages, and I couldn't even rebuild it to fix the issue.
>
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:47:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Just yesterday I completely broke a key package used to build
> many Java packages, and I couldn't even rebuild it to fix the issue.
Why? Does it B-D on itself?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> and after someone
> has implemented a solution for that there is no blocker left for
> allowing only source-only uploads from maintainers.
I'm all for source-only uploads and I adopted them recently, but I hope
this restriction won't happen, or at least not without a derogation
mechanism. Just
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:32:16PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote:
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it?
I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when
you should be building locally
On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote:
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it?
I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when
you should be building locally for testing purposes.
* Reproducibility - buildds provide a more
]] Gunnar Wolf
Didier Raboud dijo [Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100]:
Actually, I like that way to put it as it leaves us with multiple ways
forward:
* accept source-only;
* drop uploaded binaries;
I would join this camp as well. Without the working knowledge of being
a DSA
Didier Raboud dijo [Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100]:
I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a
source-only upload.
Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement?
Both.
I'd argue that it's a bug in both.
BTW, can we have this as a
On 11/24/2012 12:30 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I would join this camp as well. Without the working knowledge of being
a DSA or buildd-admin, I cannot assure how much would this increase
our workload, but it would probably just mean rebuilding for the most
popular architectures (that is, AMD64 or
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote:
What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or all
(as
in arch:any) packages on buildds.
Are there any reasons to not built arch:all on buildds aside from
technical problems?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it?
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote:
What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or
all (as
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:06:22PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it?
How is that related to my question? Also, please don't top-post and dont
send me copies.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name wrote:
Hi,
On Dienstag, 20. November 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a
source-only upload.
Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement?
Both.
I'd argue that it's a bug in both.
BTW, can we have this as a release
Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 20.59:02, Holger Levsen a écrit :
Hi,
On Dienstag, 20. November 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a
source-only upload.
Is this a feature of dak, or a policy enforcement?
Both.
On 20 November 2012 12:23, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
I am sorry, if I was not clear. I am aware of the last iteration,
but I am not enquiring about the default policy within debian as to
how we should upload by default.
I
On 20 November 2012 11:14, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:10:37AM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Source-only uploads are not allowed.
Why not? May I request a binNMU for the architecture (amd64) I upload?
I currently do not have facilities to build the
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
I am sorry, if I was not clear. I am aware of the last iteration,
but I am not enquiring about the default policy within debian as to
how we should upload by default.
I am asking why, when I had a reason to do so, was not able to do a
source-only
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08:13PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
If it's a policy enforcement, I am ok with it. Otherwise, I'd would
like to see dak accept those. I have a vague recollection of a UDD
presentations which did list count of DDs doing source-only uploads.
source+all uploads
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 02:41, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Source only uploads were afaik disabled because the uploaded source
would just disapear and never enter the archive afaik. It was just
easier to block them than to fix the archive scripts I guess.
Just trying it (for fun, see package
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:09:34PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
Finally, the decision isn't just technical.
Ah, the inevitable cry of the advocate of the technically inferior
approach.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On 01-Dec-03, 08:26 (CST), Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, there wasn't much response to this. Maybe this is related
to the big Debian KO.
Or maybe because making technical decisions by voting is silly.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031201 15:55]:
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 14:50, Roland Stigge wrote:
[...]
Instead, I volunteer to host a small, unofficial and non-anonymous
survey to get an impression of the community's opinion. If you are a
Debian Developer, please send me a private
Hi Steve,
Unfortunately, there wasn't much response to this. Maybe this is
related to the big Debian KO.
Or maybe because making technical decisions by voting is silly.
At this stage, I personally decided that more official efforts wouldn't
be appropriate just to reflect the community's
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 01:26, Roland Stigge wrote:
Meanwhile, I strongly suggest the utilization of pbuilder{,-uml} to
increase quality. Some developers (not the ones who participated here) I
talked with have never used these tools. Their usage will prevent many
of those stupid FTBFS bugs.
Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Steve,
Unfortunately, there wasn't much response to this. Maybe this is
related to the big Debian KO.
Or maybe because making technical decisions by voting is silly.
At this stage, I personally decided that more official efforts wouldn't
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I think a third (or, after reading some replies to this same mail,
fourth, fifth or nth) way could be used: Binary packages enter Sid as
usual. Now, after the 10-day period, when they are ready to enter
Testing, they are autobuilt.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:52:14AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
1. A package may not be important to developers, but is
still important to users. Alternatively, developers may simply
recompile the package without submitting a bug report.
One would hope that developers would bother filing a bug
Paul Hampson dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:19:53PM +1000]:
Oh, now we've gotten the build packages against Testing debate
intermingled with the autobuild everything debate? At least, that's
how I read that last paragraph...
I was _expecting_ (based on the rest of the email) that you meant
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:55:50PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am So, den 19.10.2003 schrieb Andrew Suffield um 21:08:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The proposal was All packages should be built in an artificial
environment of this form. I have
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Andrew Suffield dijo [Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:57:20AM +0100]:
So, we have two scenarios. Let the package be broken in such a way
that it builds differently on different platforms.
a) All packages uploaded to the archive are
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:55:50PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am So, den 19.10.2003 schrieb Andrew Suffield um 21:08:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The proposal was All packages should be built in an artificial
environment of this form. I have pointed out
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:11:28AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:08:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sure, sure.
Just give me one real world reason why it is not good to build in an
artificial environment like you call it (either pbuilder or an
autobuilder) and
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:46:27PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:13:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it
breaks; when this happens the bug
Andrew Suffield dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:12:22PM +0100]:
Strictly as stated, your goal is accurate, but as implied, it is
not. You are implying that this applies only to binary packages.
I say that failing to function when built in anything but a particular
artificial environment is a
* John Hasler
| Matt Zimmerman writes:
| This premise assumes that only developers use unstable, and in my
| experience this is very far from the truth.
|
| It is true that some packages go into testing without having been tested on
| all platforms.
Some packages probably go into stable
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
beyond any recognition - but the basic idea stands. I would prefer not
letting packages into testing which were not autobuilt.
Another argument: trojaned binaries can more easyly happen on hundrets of
machines with differen secuirty
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:39:54AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_
package out there by hand on _every_ architecture ?
Have you seriously thought about what
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical
environment. All packages in the archive function as expected.
b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it
breaks; when this happens the bug is noticed and corrected, so
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Its good for the
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:57:20AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:39:54AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_
package out there by hand on
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:39:54AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
So, we have two scenarios. Let the package be broken in such a way
that it builds differently on different platforms.
a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical
Hi,
what if we stick to our principle the maintainer knows best and
provide the infrastructure for source only uploads, but leave it to the
maintainer whether he wants to do so. Some here think buildd'ed packages
are better, some think their building the packages themselves is better.
So just the
Goswin writes:
So far the best suggestion for this problem I have heart was to allow
(require) binary uploads but to hold them back and autobuild everything
for all archs.
Or hold them back until at least one autobuild succeeds.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:51:20AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical
environment. All packages in the archive function as expected.
b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments.
I disagree with the parent mail in every respect.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:13:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it
breaks; when this happens the bug is noticed and corrected, so that
the package always builds the same way.
Why would it ever be noticed? That only
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Seriously, i perfectly understood what you are proposing, and i think
you don't realize the things involved for making such a proposal. Think
about it seriously, and you will see why your proposal is not a good
idea.
FUD. Go away.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:24:54PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Seriously, i perfectly understood what you are proposing, and i think
you don't realize the things involved for making such a proposal. Think
about it seriously, and
Hi,
Am So, den 19.10.2003 schrieb Andrew Suffield um 21:08:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The proposal was All packages should be built in an artificial
environment of this form. I have pointed out that this is a
braindamaged idea.
Well, any maintainer that
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:01:08AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Goswin writes:
So far the best suggestion for this problem I have heart was to allow
(require) binary uploads but to hold them back and autobuild everything
for all archs.
Or hold them back until at least one autobuild
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:13:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
b) The package is uploaded from real-world environments. Sometimes it
breaks; when this happens the bug is noticed and corrected, so that
the package always builds the same
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:51:20AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
c) The package is uploaded from the real-world environment where it works,
built on the architecture 99% of the users have. The breakage in the
other architectures' autobuilt packages is not noticed until after Sarge,
and/or
Andrew Suffield dijo [Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:57:20AM +0100]:
So, we have two scenarios. Let the package be broken in such a way
that it builds differently on different platforms.
a) All packages uploaded to the archive are built in an artifical
environment. All packages in the archive
I wrote:
Or hold them back until at least one autobuild succeeds.
Wouter Verhelst writes:
You're going to have to explain this one to me. You want to hold them
back (not try to build them) until one build succeeds?
Hold back the maintainer's binary upload until at least one autobuild
Gunnar Wolf writes:
I think a third (or, after reading some replies to this same mail,
fourth, fifth or nth) way could be used: Binary packages enter Sid as
usual. Now, after the 10-day period, when they are ready to enter
Testing, they are autobuilt. Only the autobuilt version hits Testing.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:03:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
A Malicious maintainer has installed a version of libc or whatever on
his system that opens the way to a security hole.
Because, of course, a malicious buildd admin or member of the Debian
Security Team is a flat impossibility, as is
John Hasler dijo [Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:25:45PM -0500]:
Gunnar Wolf writes:
I think a third (or, after reading some replies to this same mail,
fourth, fifth or nth) way could be used: Binary packages enter Sid as
usual. Now, after the 10-day period, when they are ready to enter
Testing,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:08:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sure, sure.
Just give me one real world reason why it is not good to build in an
artificial environment like you call it (either pbuilder or an
autobuilder) and i will go away, as you say.
Yes, please do. I've been following this
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:17:40PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
c) The package is uploaded from the real-world environment where it works,
built on the architecture 99% of the users have. The breakage in the
other architectures' autobuilt packages is not noticed until after Sarge,
and/or
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:52:14AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:17:40PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
If a broken package is not noticed in unstable, the package must not be
particularly important to anyone.
I disagree.
1. A package may not be important to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I think a third (or, after reading some replies to this same mail,
fourth, fifth or nth) way could be used: Binary packages enter Sid as
usual. Now, after the 10-day period, when they are ready to enter
Testing, they are autobuilt.
Matt Zimmerman writes:
This premise assumes that only developers use unstable, and in my
experience this is very far from the truth.
It is true that some packages go into testing without having been tested on
all platforms.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
On Oct 21, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:08:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sure, sure.
Just give me one real world reason why it is not good to build in an
artificial environment like you call it (either pbuilder or an
autobuilder) and i
Hi, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Sven Luther:
Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
autobuilders building the arch: all stuff.
Feel free to set up one.
I have my personal i386 autobuilder running that way for some months now.
It makes sense; I certainly have
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Its good for the autobuilders to check again if a package builds in a
mainly minimal environment.
That's an argument for building it *once* in such an
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Its good for the autobuilders to check again if a package builds in a
mainly minimal
Op zo 19-10-2003, om 15:25 schreef Matthias Urlichs:
[...]
For example, we
could block a package from building when two other autobuilders have
reported a failure on it. That would have the added benefit to place
somewhat less load on already-overworked architectures like m68k.
Please, no.
Wouter Verhelst writes:
Our autobuilder architecture is only half-automated for a reason. I won't
trust any computer to *reliably* decide whether a build failed because of
a transitional problem (unresolved build-depends, network problems, ...),
because it shouldn't be built (architecture
Hi, John Hasler wrote:
Yes, but it seems to me that if a package fails on the first two (or maybe
three) architectures
Thanks for the first; that additional word improves the heuristic
significantly.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And you also volunteer to replace the autobuilders and build _every_
package out there by hand on _every_ architecture ?
Have you seriously thought about what you are proposing here ?
What are you talking about? I'm not
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sure, the ideal would be to rebuild everything in pbuilder
Stop.
Who has been perpetrating this myth? It's idiotic.
The objective is not to create Debian packages that build in an
artificial environment. The objective is to create
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sure, the ideal would be to rebuild everything in pbuilder
Stop.
Who has been perpetrating this myth? It's idiotic.
The objective is not to create Debian packages that build in an
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 03:32:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Its good for the autobuilders to check again if a package builds in a
mainly minimal environment.
That's an argument for building it *once* in such an environment. It
is definitely not an argument that it should only be built
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:48:33PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago, I uploaded an emacs mode package (all) source only
w/o problems to ftp-master. Today, a source only upload was rejected.
Why? I think, we
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:48:33PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago, I uploaded an emacs mode package (all) source only
w/o problems to
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
- Architecture: all packages would not get built
Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
autobuilders building the arch: all stuff.
Feel free to set up one.
I feel like I am missing
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:48:33PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago, I
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:24:25AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[somebody deleted some attributions here, so I no longer know who said
what]
- Architecture: all packages would not get built
Well, we just need an
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:12:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Since experimental isn't autobuilt, I fail to see your point.
Well, try to install the quark 3.21-1 package on your system for example
then, and you will see what i
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:24:25AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
- Architecture: all packages would not get built
Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
autobuilders building the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:48:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:12:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Since experimental isn't autobuilt, I fail to see your point.
Well, try to install the quark 3.21-1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:35:17PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:24:25AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[somebody deleted some attributions here, so I no longer know who said
what]
- Architecture:
Op vr 17-10-2003, om 15:12 schreef Sven Luther:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Please search the list archives for the reasons
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op vr 17-10-2003, om 15:12 schreef Sven Luther:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Daniel
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op vr 17-10-2003, om 15:12 schreef Sven Luther:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Are you considering the fact that our current buildd
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The reason why source only uploads are bad, is that they encourage bad
practice such as people not checking the build.
More precisely, they fail to discourage it. There is not actually any
positive reinforcement for uploading an
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:48:33PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago, I uploaded an emacs mode package (all) source only
w/o problems to ftp-master. Today, a source only upload was rejected.
Why? I think, we should get rid of binary uploads...
Cheers!
Please search the list
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Jonathan Hseu wrote:
Last I asked on #debian-devel, source-only uploads aren't allowed (as in, you
can't just upload the orig.tar and the diff. With auto-builders in place, is
there any reason why?
They are allowed. See pine.
There are reasons why source-only uploads
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 03:26:10AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Jonathan Hseu wrote:
- Wouldn't the binaries be more trusted if they came from auto-builders
anyways?
So that way a maintainer can't just stick something in there that's not in
the
source code.
I would
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 09:59:04AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
Conversely, I would sometimes like to be able to get my arch-specific
and arch-independant packages built by the build daemons in order to
detect build time errors that don't show up on my own system (missing
build deps, for
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 02:05:05AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
a clean chroot will solve that one for you. besides, the buildd's may
still have an un-listed build dependency, from a previous build.
It would still be nice to have the external check.
--
You grabbed my hand and we fell
At (time_t)1009793105 John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 09:59:04AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
Conversely, I would sometimes like to be able to get my arch-specific
and arch-independant packages built by the build daemons in order to
detect build time errors that don't
In Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:59:04 + Mark cum veritate scripsit :
Conversely, I would sometimes like to be able to get my arch-specific
and arch-independant packages built by the build daemons in order to
detect build time errors that don't show up on my own system (missing
build deps, for
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 08:19:24PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Are we trying to force users to use binary packages that even the
maintainer of the package has not tried to install/run ?
We do all the time. I expect the majority of the packages on the
machine I'm typing this on have not been
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 02:34:56PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 08:19:24PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Are we trying to force users to use binary packages that even the
maintainer of the package has not tried to install/run ?
We do all the time. I expect the majority
96 matches
Mail list logo
