Re: NEW handling ...
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:11PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> >> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
> >> documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?)
> > Don't you think maintainers are big enough to know how to handle this kind of
> > decisions ?
>
> NO.
> For many of them this is a clear no. Unfortunately.
To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
> Automated NEW is IMO a thing we should never do.
Semi-automated was the proposal, with a delayed acceptance (a week or so)
where the ftp-masters can take positive action to prevent the automated NEW
handling. No risk, if a packages is exageratedly splitted, they get the email
about it, notice it is exageratedly splitted, and veto it, and normal NEW
behavior follows.
We could even imagine an automated analysis, which would differentiate
unproblematic modifications (a few new packages of moderate size for example),
or policy-mandated NEW (same packages with just a different ABI version
number, or a new kernel package), and provide them to ftp-masters via email
and a keyword in the subject allowing this classification and easy filtering
of problematic packages.
Mmm, i will try to find time to flesh out this proposal and propose code for
it. Now if the existing code was written in a reasonable language :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: