Re: The Debian Maintainers GR
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Anyway, now Rperl-lover can upload the package on his own, but as a pure
> perl robot, he is bound to fuck up. After a year, *you* will need to
> kick him to understand how SONAMEs work :)
And yet I'm speaking in favor of the proposal, yes?
Getting folks to understand how SONAMEs work is such a high bar that I don't
think it should be a requirement even for DDs, let alone DMs. Instead, my
interest is in improving our toolset so that it can do the work for me of
letting maintainers know, ASAP, when they've done something wrong with a
I may have joked from time to time about being given veto power over who's
allowed to maintain library packages, but I don't really think that would be
a good idea. The vast majority of library maintainers never have to listen
to me yell more than once (and the vast majority of them never have to hear
it at all). If there were really DMs repeatedly uploading broken library
packages in spite of explanations, that would surely be a reason to pull
their DMship, but I can't see it being a common occurrence. (For one thing,
consider that this proposal wouldn't let a DM change library or dev package
names for a transition on their own, so there would have to be a DD involved
as well in the case of a wrongly-renamed package.)
> My whole argument boils down to "I don't trust DDs". I would be happy to
> vote in favour of this proposal if the list of packages each DM can
> upload is controlled by a small group of people (the DM keyring
> maintainers) and not a group of ~1000 people.
I don't trust DDs either; I trust the system, because it's essentially the
same system we've used all this time for creating the best Linux distro
around, with just a few parameters tweaked.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.