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

Should SONAME bumps always go through NEW

On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 13:34 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> 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.

(and that is just as it should be).

> > 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.

What kind of new binary package can be more disruptive than a SONAME
bump??? The restrictions exist for good technical reasons. SONAME bumps
need careful management across a number of different packages.

> A library soname transition is a binary package name change for
> technical reasons.  IMO there isn't really a good reason to send them
> through NEW at all, but that's how the scripts work. 

It does give others watching NEW a chance to see a pending transition -
bumping a SONAME should not be done lightly (especially now). I think
that is a good reason.

> If you can build consensus on the fact that soname bumps shouldn't go
> through NEW, then you could implement that technically. 

Personally, I think that SONAME bumps in NEW get "fast-tracked" through
the queue anyway and I think it is a worthwhile safeguard that should be
retained. If SONAME bumps are not to go through NEW in the future, I
think it should be mandatory that SONAME bumps go through some other
"holding" phase instead - there should be technical restrictions on
library transitions and that DM's should still not be allowed to make
uploads that involve a SONAME bump. Such a "holding" phase would just be
another name for NEW anyway, hence I think it should stay as-is.

Dropping this merely for the convenience of DM's when the real problem
is delays in NM is trying to fix the wrong problem in the wrong place,

>  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.

:-) Most definitely not a bug, IMHO.


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: