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

Re: uploading new binary packages from a DM approved source package

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>  On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>  > if I want to packge a new upstream version of DM-Upload-Allowed
>  > library (for example [1]), it changes the name of the binary package
>  > and thus goes to NEW.
>  >
>  > Last time I asked it wasn't possible for me, as a DM, to upload it and
>  > I had to search for a sponsor.
>  >
>  > Is there some policital reason for that,
>  Yes.  DMs are not as thoroughly checked as DDs, and thus have less
>  rights to change things in the archive.  The idea is that they should be
>  allowed to upload packages they already maintain, but not add new ones.
>  This is true both for new source, and new binary packages.

I completely agree they shouldn't be able to add new packages.

>  A library soname transition is a binary package name change for
>  technical reasons.

Exactly, that's why I think it could be resolved somehow, see for
example my suggestion below.

> IMO there isn't really a good reason to send them
>  through NEW at all, but that's how the scripts work.  And it's not that
>  bad, it makes sure there's an extra check on each soname bump, which can
>  be useful.  It does also mean that DMs need a sponsor for the upload,
>  but that should be acceptable as well.
>  > or is it just because noone has yet implemented it in the scripts? If
>  > the latter case, how can I help?
>  If you can build consensus on the fact that soname bumps shouldn't go
>  through NEW, then you could implement that technically.  But I don't
>  think you will be able to.  In fact, most people might well think that
>  soname bumps should indeed go through NEW, and that that is not a bug.
>  Personally I didn't really think about it.  I've never considered it a
>  problem, but wouldn't consider it a problem if they don't go through NEW
>  either.

Right. Well, how about changing the DM scripts to allow DMs to upload
new sonames to NEW? (And only new sonames). I.e. not accepting
completely new binary package (and of course not accepting a new
source package).

That way it will still be checked and yet the DM will not have to
search for a sponsor.


Reply to: