[maemo-developers] RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation
From: David Hagood david.hagood at gmail.comDate: Sun Jan 13 18:26:43 EET 2008
- Previous message: RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation
- Next message: RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
May I suggest that the uploads consist of source, not pre-built binary .deb's? This helps in several ways: 1) it helps reduce (but not eliminate) the risk of trojans. 2) It helps when a newer version of the system comes out, as the source is guaranteed to be available. 3) It eases the signing of packaged by a trusted authority. 4) It helps guarantee the requirements of the package are consistent with the current release. 5) It forces developers to make their code build cleanly and easily. And now I'm going to say something that will probably draw great ire from some folks: When a program is being evaluated for inclusion, the presence of any compiler warnings in the build should be taken as a red flag. Programmers who take the time to make their code compile cleanly with "-Wall -Wextra -Werror -fmudflap" tend to have fewer errors in their code. Compiler "warnings" are rarely just warnings - they are errors, bugs waiting to happen. I'm not saying "non-zero warnings := rejection", but it should be taken as an opportunity for constructive feedback to the programmer.
- Previous message: RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation
- Next message: RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]