Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes: > There are a lot of examples of busywork in Debian, such as documenting > licenses, packaging dependencies, removing non-free files that are only > in source packages, runtime selection of correct CPU instructions, > fixing build failures, porting reverse dependencies to newer versions > of APIs etc. All of these are things that contributors complain about > and get burned out by us requiring or even suggesting. All of them > however are necessary in some way. I think the requirements around > source and building are just another example of this. Indeed. But is it necessary that this busywork be checked in the way it's currently checked, as the package passes through NEW? Why does it only have to be checked this way when a package name changes or there's a new binary being built? The rest of the time we seem fine catching all of these kinds of things through bug reports. We trust each other not to violate Policy. If we do find violations, we file serious bugs, and expect those to be acted upon. But not if there's a new package name! Oh no, then we instead insist that related work stops, and have the developer wait for months for detailed manual review by overworked reviewers. Best, Gard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature