Re: Lintian based autorejects
Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
With some obvious exceptions (BYHAND and maintainer disputes come to
mind), it's the first time that ftp-masters take accept/reject decisions
on regular package uploads and not just NEW packages.
lintian already categorizes the bugs into “errors” and “warnings”. I'd
personally prefer it if the ftp-master team didn't choose to hand-pick
lintian tags themselves but trusted lintian and its maintainers.
Possibly also by filling bugs to lintian or policy as appropriate.
I'd also prefer it if the QA team was involved somehow in all these,
since, well, this is about “quality assurance”, isn't it?
While I also agree in principle with lintian-based autorejects and
respect the work that has been done for this, I don't think that it fits
the ftp-master job description to take such a decision.
It may be an acceptable change in the role's power but it should at
least be clear and communicated as such.