Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
> problem.
Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
I do think that the ftp team decides what gets into the
archive. They do this however they choose -- and I respect that decision.
Just like the release team decides what gets ihnto the
release. By whatever means they chose.
Just like the release team decides on fiat what is RC policy,
the ftp team decides what error make the packages too buggy for Debian.
And poor mortals like me just kowtow, accept the rule-by-fiat,
and try to conform.
>> 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.
By the same token, the release team should not be accepting
packages intot he release that ciolate the MUST requirements, neh? Or
is the release team more equal than the ftp team?
> The right process is: discuss; reach a consensus; amend Policy; enforce
> Policy.
Except when the release team decides to throw the policy to the
wind and accept packages that wilfully violate policy MUST directives.
Sounds like a double standard to me.
> 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.
And when the release team decides that stuff is not a vblocker,
and policy is left scrambling as to what is a serious bug and what is
not.
> The ftp team are stewards of the archive, not autocrats.
The release team is a steward _and_ autocrats? Or how is the rc
policy decided?
>> 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.
Seems like the same process the release team uses, in my humble
opinion.
All delegates feel like they are god, when it comes to their
part of the process.
manoj
--
I think that's easier to read. Pardon me. Less difficult to
read. Larry Wall in <199710120226.TAA06867@wall.org>
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: