On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > as I just wrote to Joerge, I am not refering to the initial upload of a > > brand-new package which warrants such attention, but the upload for bug > > fixes and new upstream. If someone uploads Bash, its a pretty safe bet > > that the license is not going to change but if it did, all that would be > > required is to change this 'tag' and then have an automated check > > compare 'tag' with 'oldtag' and flag this upload as requireing a license > > re-cert. > > In your example the package doesnt even hit the NEW queue as long as no > binary package name changes. Hi Michael, as I just emailed, my brain is addled at the moment so I did not represent an accurate senario involving NEW. There are 2 cases: a brand new packages and any subsequent upload to NEW. I expect the brand new package to get a through inspection, but once it would be 'tag'ed, it should not need a re-examination until the 'tag' value was different from previous uploads to NEW. Cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature