NEW Packages process

[Sarah Hobbs]

James Westby wrote:
> Isn't the proposal to accept only uploads that also have binary 
> packages, like the Debian archive does? They can be discarded (perhaps
> after a lintian check), but at least you know they built once somewhere.
> The source package that comes with it can then be used for the
> rest of the process.

Possibly.  But I still have no confidence that the binary provided 
actually has anything to do with the source, let alone that the source 
being built contains the exact same output as the binary (in terms of 
files, etc).

I can see a whole lot of people submitting checkinstalled binaries, and 
then dh-make template packages as a "source", as an afterthought.  Even 
checkinstalled packages built "somewhere".  That's not so helpful.

This also wouldn't fix the "it worked on my machine, where I didn't use 
pbuilder, but the source doesn't build when pbuilder is used" problem. 
I think far more people build the packages on their own machines, 
without using pbuilder/sbuild/clean chroot, than not attempting to build 
their own packages at all, before submitting them to REVU.

Good idea - but wouldn't work in practice.  I don't see how binary 
uploads, even when accompanied by sources, buy us anything at all.

Hobbsee

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080418/7c1ec6a2/attachment.pgp