Re: A proposal for improving efficiency of the FTP NEW process
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:57:31PM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:00:57 AM CST Gert Wollny wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make a proposal how
> > transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> > review packages could be improved.
>
> I have an orthogonal proposal to enhance efficiency: stop re-examining each
> new SOVERSION of a shared library package.
>
> The NEW queue is said to be for "when a new package is uploaded to Debian for
> the first time" [1]. For many packages, uploading a new upstream version goes
> straight into unstable. This is not true, however, for shared library
> packages. Because of the convention that a shared library package name
> contains the SOVERSION and the convention that any new binary package requires
> going through NEW -- each and every new upstream makes a trip through NEW.
> This is unnecessary work for FTP masters and unnecessary friction.
>
> Solution: change the convention to "any new SOURCE package requires a trip
> through NEW".
Fully agreed. I'm not sure whether the bug in DAK described here[2]
which also forces packages through NEW which do not even have a name
change but have no binary but just a source package in the archive will
address this.
I had the discussion above with ftpmaster before and the argument is
that it is sensible to re-check random packages from time to time and
so checking new SOVERSION packages is one way to do so. My argument
that actually this is *not* a *random* selection was not answered.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/NewQueue
[2] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/2018-March/060615.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: