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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs.  Anyone can do that.  I don't see any
> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.

I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed to that
the package has been "deemed too buggy to be in Debian", and that this
justifies a "serious" severity on the bug - effectively affirming that the
ftp team has the right to arbitrarily overrule Policy.  I think that's a

> We knew this decision by the ftp team was coming for a while, and will
> require checking against our other documents and probably changes to the
> severity of various rules.

And I objected before when this was first proposed that the ftp team should
not be auto-rejecting from the archive for any issues that are not
violations of Policy "must" requirements.

The right process is:  discuss; reach a consensus; amend Policy; enforce

The wrong process is:  the ftp team declares that certain bugs are blockers
for inclusion in the archive, and Policy is left to scramble to keep up with
documenting this.

The ftp team are stewards of the archive, not autocrats.

> It's going to take changes to Lintian as well as Policy.  I think it's a
> very positive step forward for the archive as a whole to start doing
> auto-rejects for some major Lintian tags, so I'm happy to help do the work
> there, as much as I have time to do so.

I agree with this principle.  What I object to is the arbitrary and
non-consensual definition of "major" that's currently being used.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: