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

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:22:05PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the
> task the project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning

And indeed, the proposal [1] (or at least my proposal) is to let dak
automatically reject on lintian basis, with no need for ftp-masters to
fiddle with that.

  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/msg00184.html

That to me would look like not as an additional job that the project
asked ftp-masters to do, but rather as a (sane) extra QA step. It it
were detectable, I'd love to reject also automatically packages which
were not built with cowbuilder/pbuilder/..., which were not installed
by the uploader before uploading, and so on and so forth.

That has nothing to do with power (or with personal battles against
ftp-masters, FWIW), just plain QA.

And if you argue that lintian can be sometimes dumb in checking, I for
sure concur, it is just a program after all. To "fight" that, we give
uploaders the power of overrides and to "someone" the power of tuning
lintian parameters.

To me, the most natural choice of someone looks like ftp-masters, just
because they do maintainer dak. If people are uneasy about that other
choices can be:

- the lintian maintainers
- the QA team
- the policy editors
- the CTTE
- ... add yours ...


Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: