Re: list what's in the NEW queue?
On Friday 04 February 2005 02:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op do, 03-02-2005 te 15:44 +0100, schreef Frederik Dannemare:
> > > > which
> > > > requires no imprimatur from the DPL, before you start throwing
> > > > packages that have never even been tested by their maintainer
> > > > at us faster than we already get them.
> > >
> > > I see your point if it is really the case that uploads are being
> > > done without proper testing from the maintainer himself/herself.
> > His point is still valid even if all maintainers do proper testing.
> > You can't be expected as a maintainer to be able to test /every/
> > possible or impossible situation in which a package could be used.
> > And then I'm not even talking about packages that should conflict
> > with eachother but don't, because the maintainer of the new package
> > didn't know that a file in his package happens to have the same
> > name as a different file in a completely unrelated package...
> What I know is that every time an ftpmaster processes a batch of NEW
> packages, a percentage of them wind up in testing with serious bugs
> for failing to declare build-dependencies, and then the release team
> has to track these bugs.
> Since the testing scripts have no way to distinguish an
> architecture-specific package from a broken binary that only builds
> on the maintainer's system, the only strategies I can think of
> off-hand that would be effective at reducing this problem are to
> disallow all binary uploads from maintainers,
[ snip ]
Yes, much better to have everything built by the buildd in a clean env,
IMO. This would be on my wishlist for post-sarge. This topic was also
discussed (for other reasons, though; security concerns, I think it
was) last summer.
Frederik Dannemare | mailto:email@example.com
http://frederik.dannemare.net | http://www.linuxworlddomination.dk