Source-only uploads
Mark Brown
> 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 rather have the original upload be a binary one. I trust this more,
> as the maintainer has more likely installed what he has just built, and tested
> it out. No such assurance happens with a source only upload.
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 example).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
John H. Robinson, IV
>
> 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 example).
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.
-john
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Colin Watson
> 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 installed or run by the
> maintainer - but I guess that's what I get for using PowerPC.
At least the architecture-independent parts, like the postinst scripts,
should have been run by somebody, which is a useful check.
--
Colin Watson [cjwa...@flatline.org.uk]