Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 11:21:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 08:39:10PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > * it's not ftp-master's business to judge on _technical_ merits of the > > pacakge (bad packaging practices, missing dependencies, ignores > > /chapter and verse/ of policy, ...), so we can safely rule that one > > out > Uh, wtf are you on? Anthony, please, think in context. Use some common sense.
Ah, arrogance and self-righteousness with a dash of utter ignorance. Fair enough.
Or is it now your intention to burden the bunch of people who actually do some work as ftp-master with package nitpicking, too? Give me a break.
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Processing of NEW packages is done with a tool called "lisa", the use of which involves two steps -- checking the package, then either accepting it, rejecting it, or skipping it. Checking it invokes a library called "fernanda.py" whose _sole_ purpose is finding technical issues with the package; it runs both lintian and linda, gives a full manifest of the changed packages, lists the contents of the control file, highlighting issues that might need attention, dumps the copyright file, and so on.
Let me use a package of mine as an example: mesa 6.2.1-1 (source)
produces, among others, the binary package mesag3. This package ships
libGL.so.1. This is a violation of 8.1 ("The run-time shared library
needs to be placed in a package called `<libraryname><soversion>'
[...]").
*shrug* The proper thing to do when policy recommends something that's wrong is to fix policy. That policy isn't particularly well maintained has very little to do with whether NEW packages will have their technical flaws examined or not.
Cheers, aj