On Saturday 12 July 2008, Per Andersson wrote:
> As part of my GSoC project I packaged micro-evtd [0]. I asked
> Frans Pop and Martin Michlmayr why the similar package
> qcontrol [1] also is packaged as an udeb. The reason is that it
> can be very useful to play a sound or a light a LED when, for
> instance, the installer is ready for ssh login. So I thought this
> would be neat to have for the devices supported by micro-evtd
> as well, Kurobox Pro, Linstation Pro.
No problems so far :-)
> The package micro-evtd got rejected from NEW because it
> contains an udeb and it should be discussed and reviewed with
> d-i team.
No, it got rejected because it had a udeb that was not discussed *and*
contained obvious packaging errors that could be considered Release
Critical.
> I wasn't aware that there was a review process that udebs
> should go through, I have tried to find docs about this as well
> without any success.
There is no hard documentation about it except past discussions on the
mailing list [1]. So there is no real problem that you did not follow
that procedure and there is also no real problem with uploading the
package. There is just a problem with the basic quality of the package as
it was uploaded. Our agreement with the FTP-masters is there exactly to
catch such cases. In this case I think maybe Martin could have known
about this and told you.
Normally an OK from for example Martin would have been sufficient with the
assumption that he would have done a good review of the udeb.
However, because it basically dropped out of the blue yesterday and we
were asked about it by the FTP-masters, I had a quick look at the
contents of the udeb and saw two obvious and fairly serious errors:
- a hook script in /lib/
- missing dependency on libc-udeb
For me this meant that even a basic review had not taken place and,
especially as Otavio agreed, the package was rejected.
Later you indicated on IRC that the udeb was far from ready, so it
probably would have been better to just upload the package with the udeb
completely disabled (removed from the control file and relevant lines
commented out in debian/rules). It could then have been added in a later
upload. This is possibly still the best option for now.
> So, in order to get micro-evtd accepted, please help me review
> what should be done. If there are any related docs please point
> me to them.
Best thing to do is to send a mail to the list with a short intro of the
new package (as you did at the top of this mail) and a link to a location
from where the package and source and/or a diff for the addition of the
udeb can be downloaded, and asking for a review or saying that a review
had already been done by $member_of_di_team.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2007/07/msg00324.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2007/07/msg00398.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.