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 loca
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 c
]] 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
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 o
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,
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 wrote:
>
> > On We
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 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
> > in arch:an
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.as
On 20 November 2012 12:23, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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 am ask
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?
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 rele
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 prob
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-
On 20 November 2012 11:14, Andrey Rahmatullin 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 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 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 "
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 effo
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.
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
* 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 pr
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 cl
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
* 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 wit
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
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 ha
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
> > autobui
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 poin
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
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
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
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 r
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 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)
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
Elm
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:
> 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 02:17:40PM -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,
> > a
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 t
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
> >
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
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
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
succee
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 f
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 <[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
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
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 tha
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 seriousl
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 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
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 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
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 H
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 th
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
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 b
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 a
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, s
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
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?
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:
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"
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.
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
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 a
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 ha
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 buil
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 buil
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 De
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 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
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
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 th
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]
> > > > > - Arch
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 qua
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 bu
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 wh
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 ne
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
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
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 probl
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
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
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 ma
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 bee
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 e
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 tha
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
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 exa
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.
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 uploa
96 matches
Mail list logo
