[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: making sponsorship easier and make (love && (!war))

Hi Peter,

My comments are below.

On Monday 15 January 2001 20:37, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> I'd like to make a proposal that suggests alternative to
> new-maintainer process:
> I'm writing a software named Sponsoring Build Daemon. It is aimed to
> help process of sponsoring for developer-sponsor.
>        	       	   ----------
>     Package	  |   SBD    |
>     Creator  ---> | Incoming | -> (1) --> Ofic. Developer's Checks
>                	  |  Queue   | 	       	       	    |
>        	  	   ----------               	   \ /
> 						---------
>       	       	       	       	       	  Debian Incoming Queue
> 						 ------
> (1) This is where SBD makes his work. SBD takes files from incoming,
> checks signature of .changes file if it came from creator of package,
> builds it, checks if it is installable, lintians it (most common
This is problematic checking actually. I love lintian but sometimes lintian 
doesn't love me, even I do everything O.K. :-)

> errors). If error appears, SBD mails log to package creator, In other
> case it moves compiled packages to developer's directory where

is a potential bottleneck. Currently every time I inform my sponsor(s) I have 
ready packages to upload (so I have to be sure what I want to upload - I am 
talking with live humans). If this stage is automatically you can expect a 
flood of "almost checked" packages (I am talking with nobody) so the queues 
in these directories may be longer, and longer.

> he makes final checks, that couldn't be found with lintian. If everything
> is alright, he signs dsc and changes files and uploads to debian
> incoming queue.

Do you really believe a sponsor want to check fifth or tenth update of a 
given applicant's package?

> I think it's clear. It should improve sponsoring process and make it
> faster. The only disadvantage I saw while not being debian developer
> is slow sponsoring process.
> As you see from scheme, developer's checks are necessary and developer
> using this software must be careful. Maybe we can make some sponsoring
> committee...


Reply to: