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

Re: Challenge: Binary free uploading

* Adeodato Sim?? <dato@net.com.org.es> [060717 15:11]:
> But also, I'm really very curious (and would welcome insight from any
> Ubuntu people reading this) how the above mentioned concerns for
> "ensuring a minimum amount of testing" are addressed in Ubuntu.

Actually that "minimum amount of testing" is one of my biggest concerns
with ubuntu. Of course I'm biased because I do not care about Ubuntu and
only get in touch with it, as people come to me as the "local person you
can ask when something does not work with your Debian system" also with
their Ubuntu problems, so I only see the worst cases.

Take a look at https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/xdm/+bug/2461
for example. From my POV someone took a new version and uploaded it but
most likely never tested it, because it simply cannot work without the
missing part, it does not start, does not run, does nothing. And such
a package even entered a release. (I've never looked at a launchpad
before so I may misparse it, the person coming to me with the problem
at least claimed it was a released version he used)

That's no big problem when you have a majority only target and people
can always switch back to Debian once they realize that they - like
anyone else - are a minority. But once the game is no longer
"a small group of people cope with a large volume of stuff and make
sure the things journalists look at work properly" but "every package
has a maintainer looking after it" there should be proper testing
procedures. And when there are no proper testing procedures, at least
the procedures should be choosen to not discourage testing. 

  Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: