Re: sponsor rules
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> * Previously Ari Pollak (compwiz@aripollak.com) wrote:
> > > No NM progress -- not even an ID check.
> > This is kind of prejudiced against NMs who do not easily have access to
> > another maintainer for a keysigning
>
> Any sponsored package is installed into unstable, propagated through all
> the mirrors, and implicitly bears the official Debian stamp. Is it really
> a good idea to distribute and endorse the work of someone whose identity
> hasn't yet been verified?
The package bears the stamp of the sponsor, in this case, not the new
maintainer. In these situations, the automated tools should do more checks,
as the sponsoree is not yet 'trusted' or 'known'.
Whoever sponsored this upload needs a very severe larting. The pkg was
obviously new, so would have been had to be ack'd by ftpmaster. The other
pkgs were also knew, and the would also have to be ack'd. I find it very hard
to believe that ftpmaster would only ack some, and not the others.
The lintian warnings/errors are inexcusable(if they are easy ones, the
original email didn't say).
Reply to: