Re: NEW processing friction
Hello,
On Thu 03 Mar 2022 at 07:36am +01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Am Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:33:35AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>>
>> I'm sorry to be responding only a month later, but I think there are
>> some reasons why binNEW is not the worst place to be doing these extra
>> checks: packages with SONAME bumps are typically C or C++ projects and
>> these are (i) large, such that d/copyright is more likely to drift
>> simply because of the volume of files; and (ii) often contain embedded
>> code copies with different copyright and licensing. My own NEW
>> experience is that I've consistently found more problems in binNEW
>> packages than anywhere else.
>
> Thanks a lot for your insight into this topic. I'd like to stress my
> point (again) that besides I was naively thinking that the checks done
> on packages that are passing new due to binary package changes (which
> are not only due to changed SONAME) my main point is that I've found
> a discrepancy in statements of ftpmaster teams. My question whether
> we agree to status A or B[1] was not yet answered (or I missed some
> explicit answer).
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> PS: I'm currently considering writing up some summary of the bunch
> of threads that was born out of my initial mail.
>
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00226.html
Assuming I'm not misreading, the ftpteam currently thinks (B).
--
Sean Whitton
Reply to: