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

Re: Not every package should enter Debian (was: Re: Who cares about NEW when there are bigger issues? (was Re: Is NEW processing on hold?

Maybe new versions of packages already in the archive that depend upon packages which are NEW could somehow signal or automatically raise the priority of those said packages waiting to get in.

I guess it's a common case, specially for new libraries, since it can potentially hold important new
features or fixes for packages that are already in the archive.

I think it wouldn't hurt, since it would give more flow to updating what's already in the archive,
without giving too much  incentive to unnecessary bloat :)

It's not a complete solution to anything but might help to improve the process a bit. I currently have a package wating for a new lib :D and it happened about 2 months ago with another package of mine, on that moment I uploaded both at the same time by distraction and ended with a severe dependency



Joel Aelwyn wrote:

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:50:05PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
IMHO, Debian has a serious double-problem here and needs to attack it. ftp-masters should, as I understand the role, be a purely administrative function: keep the archive running. No policy decisions should be made by ftp-masters.

In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all (I agree that a delay of a few days is sensible to give us time to react to the worst problem cases.)
Unfortunately reality isn't so simple. In practice, the ftp-masters
have also become the review point for new packages. We *need* new
packages reviewing just to filter out some of the worst of the stupid
from the archive; frankly we need more than just new packages
reviewing. However, splitting that task out would probably be a good

I've had packages sent back based on reviews. And while I may be a grouchy
cuss at times, especially over some of the other issues I see with
ftpmaster, I have no complaint about having gotton one back, even when
I didn't agree with the reasoning. The ftpmaster member involved and I
discussed it, and (at least as far as I recall) I ended up resubmitting a
package that was somewhere in between, but closer to their preference than
my initial one.

Proposals have been made about splitting the task of package review from
the administrative tasks of running the archive proper, recently; they were
rejected. I consider that highly unfortunate, but if you really want to
see it, you're going to have to either convince the ftpmasters that the
proposal really does have merit enough, or convince the DPL that this is a
large enough problem that it's leading to a non-functional team.

I would suggest reading the archives on -project, for last month, where
most of this has already been thoroughly discussed, but I really don't
think that removing the filtering is a sane idea.

Reply to: