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

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?
hi, josh. :)

i think you are on the wrong track; there's absolutly nothing wrong with
giving the debian stamp to software authored or packaged by parties
unknown. i do think that whoever uploads the package, be it a maintainer,
sponsor, or upstream, must make sure the package is useful and take
responsibility for it if that is not the case.

it's really not too hard to run 'lintian -i foo.deb' and 'dpkg -i
foo.deb'. perhaps katie could be modified to reject uploaded packages that
aren't lintian-clean.

i don't know that i agree with some of the suggestions for penalties for
such behavior. if the package is buggy, rc bugs will get filed against it,
and if it's not fixed, it's removed.

of course, it could be entertaining to hand out demerits for rc bugs. :)

Reply to: