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, to get FTBFS errors detected and filed sooner after packages are uploaded, or to cut down on the number of utterly broken packages that are getting uploaded in the first place. I'm not suggesting that ftpmasters are deliberately ignoring the NEW queue for sarge's sake, but from here I'm not shedding any tears. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature