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

Re: Are libraries with bumped SONAME subject of inspection of ftpmaster or not



On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 01:49:19PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:15:30AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > 
> > its surely an interesting topic how to avoid binary name changes and its
> > also interesting to discuss ABI changes and workarounds.
> > 
> > However, my point was that I want to know what policy ftpmaster applies
> > to new binary names and to focus on this topic.
> 
> As far as I know, ftpmaster requires a long, laborious review every
> single time there is a new binary package released.  As a result, it
> strongly disincentivizes maintainers from packaging up new releases
> because it's a pain in the posterior.
> 
> Even if it isn't formal policy, the long delay has happened enough
> times that I just assume it will be there, and it influences my
> behavior accordingly.

I like the earlier thread idea of de-coupling the copyright review
(eventually of NEW entirely? but for now, just bin NEW) from "the other
checks and balances". Ultimately, a mistake in debian/copyright *can* be
just considered a bug with priority determined just like any other, so
long as it is still legal for Debian to distribute. However, this is an
issue whenever upstream ships a new source file, not when a new binary
is added, so I hope that good maintainers do their due diligence on new
upstream releases.

If that is agreed informally, then while a lottery review would be a
cool addition, it would not be a prerequisite to dropping its
requirement for sources which have already been accepted into the
archive once. This could be formalised via a GR empowering the FTP team.

That last has made me wonder if the ftp-master team could split the NEW
source queue into two phases, one where a copyright review is performed
and one where the other checks are. I can see pros and cons for either
way round these phases could be done, but one should feed into the
other. Presumably, that this has not already happened means there would
be little benefit because of context switching?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: