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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do
>> > not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors
>> > (according to the proposed wording).  I'm not sure it is worth though,
>>         I beg to differ. In the long run, there should not be *any* such
>>  violations in the archive; so it is not really worth spending time
>>  writing code for dak that will shortly be a dead path.
> For packages that are now in the archive with lintian errors that would
> have prevented them to be uploaded, you're right. However, as a corner
> case, you can imagine a new lintian check added 10 years from now, and
> that check be used to refuse uploads. All packages upload starting from
> now to that moment might be prone to that error. That error would upload
> to upload NMUs which do not fix it (but possibly fix other serious
> errors).
> This argument is moot only if you assume that we will never add a new
> check to the dak black list which has at least one matching package in
> the archive. Are you sure that will never be the case? I'm not that
> confident.

        That is not what I meant. I meant that when we do add such a
 lintian check to the blacklist, we also file serious bugs against those
 packages in the archive; and aggressively work to either fix the
 packages, or remove them from the archive. I think our effort should be
 spent in the fixing/removal, rather than perpetuating buggy packages in
 the archive.  If a package is too buggy to be i Debian, we should not
 do more work in order for it to remain in.

How wonderful opera would be if there were no singers.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: