Re: broken .orig.tar.gz (Re: package upload rejected - no email)
Thomas Viehmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> While I personally try to take care to only upload pristine .orig.tar.gz
> for my own packages (and even think that using the delete option might
> be preferable to unpacking and packing again) I distinctly think that
> this is out of the scope of NEW checking,
Joerg doesn't think so, but it's in his minor issues section. See:
second entry in the second table.
> Rejecting for non-critical packaging issues would not only further
> increase the reject ratio but also require a lot of additional work.
Joerg has been moving towards doing more of this, and I applaud him for
doing so. I hope that anyone else who works on NEW does the same. It's
one of our best opportunities to raise the general quality of the archive
up-front, rather than filing bugs and trying to chase down maintainers who
sometimes no longer care now that their software is in the archive.
That being said, I certainly agree that there's a tradeoff, and even as
Lintian maintainer I certainly wouldn't support, say, rejecting on any
Lintian-reported problem. It's just that repackaging of .orig.tar.gz
files is something that Lintian currently isn't in a position to check
easily, and hence NEW is about the *only* place anyone looks at this.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>