2009-03-26 (목), 09:04 +0100, Bernhard R. Link: > * Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> [090325 20:06]: > > Yes, I would say that if the problem is so severe that a package must > > be REJECTed, then logically it would follow that the packages in the > > archive are intolerable enough that they should be removed forthwith. > > > > I'm curious about how others reconcile not doing so. > > I think removing a package from a distribution should need more reasons > than a REJECT of that package. > > Once a package hits the archives people can using it. So removing a > package means users lose something they might thought thay have. > While not letting a new package (or changed package) in, there is no > package in the archive where users could be misguidedly depend on. > > (That's not to say that nothing should be removed from distributions, > just that in my eyes reasons to REJECT packages should be a strict > subset of reasons to remove packages). If the purpose of the NEW check is not to guarantee 100% copyright/license clearness of Debian archive, then what's the point of the NEW check spending much manpower and time in a closed manner like now? I want to suggest to allow a bit more errors in the archive (allowing new binary package addition with no check) and to fix those errors later in more scalable and faster ways (like Debian BTS) than NEW queue. -- Changwoo Ryu <cwryu@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part