Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080215 11:46]: >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:42:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: >> > This is a very good idea, but the reason why source-only uploads are >> > not allowed is that there are concerns that if the binary package is >> > not used for real, the quality of the source package will drop. Within >> > this hypothesis, there is no incentive for the laxist developper to use >> > the valuable feedback that you propose. >> >> I personally consider this argument bogus as well. Let's imagine we can >> split DDs and DMs into "good" and "bad" uploaders. Good uploaders >> nowadays use a clean p/cowbuilder environment, test their packages, yada >> yada, and then upload. > > Maintainers only doing builds in clean environments are not good > maintainers, as they miss testing their build system in unclean > environments. Current buildds are in avarage far too clean to test this. > A good maintainer therefore should (at least sometimes) build in an > unclean environment.
I guess the problem here is the meaning/understanding of the word 'unclean'. Some people, including myself, use a mix of testing and sid so the resulting binary package may differ only because it was compiled against libfoo2 (in testing) instead of libfoo3 (in sid). There have also been several situations where a DD has built the package using some libbar-dev from experimental, causing the same kind of problems. And using Build-conflicts doesn't help on this kind of situations (and I'm sure the RMs will strongly object on the crazy idea of using versioned build-depends). IMHO if source only uploads are allowed this would let people do binary+source or source only uploads so it is still up to the DD/DM what they upload. Kind regards, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
