Are libraries with bumped SONAME subject of inspection of ftpmaster or not
Hi,
if a source package in Debian creates a new binary package name it has
to pass the new queue. If I understand this posting from last year[1]
correctly (people in CC who were in CC of that posting) this is just
because nobody has written some kind of "auto-approver" for dak.
Usually the "social" workaround for this missing piece of code is to
ping ftpmaster either via IRC or mail and explain that this code can be
easily accepted since it was once checked for copyright. This typically
happens for library packages with bumped sonames very reliably (thanks
to ftpmasters who are helping here quickly).
However it happens from time to time when I do so that I'm told: Well
that's new upstream code and new copyright inspection is needed and thus
we need time ($volunteers, $others_are_waiting etc. - I think I'm long
enough inside the project that I do not need the latter instructions).
This recently happed for me in the case of onetbb (which was not
uploaded by myself - so I'm not even asking for myself while other
packages of mine (new ones and ones with just renames) are waiting in
the queue.) There are lots of other packages (namely numba and lots of
other packages depending from numba that FTBFS) depending from onetbb -
thus I pinged on #debian-ftp more than once (which I really hate).
Due to this I'd like to have a clear statement here (which would
prove myself in pinging either right or wrong and thus I'm asking):
A. Packages with new binary package names should not undergo
the copyright inspection by ftpmaster and can be
auto-approved (either technically or manually)
B. Any package in the new queue needs to be inspected by
ftpmaster for copyright issues and it takes as long as
it takes no matter whether it is a new package or a
package with changed binary name.
I would love to have this clearly documented since in case B. I would
stop wasting my and ftpmaster time with nagging which is not rectified
than.
I personally clearly prefer A. and I wish we could clarify this
situation.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/07/msg00231.html
[2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/onetbb_2021.4.0-1~exp1.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: