On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which > > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request for > > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subject. > > As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters > Sure, but i guess i will ask you the same question in next years campaign :) Sven, the reason people get annoyed at you and dislike working with you is that you keep asking the same question in hopes that the answer will somehow change. You've got your answer, you don't need to ask again. > Given that, the real question is one of confiance. Which do you believe of the > kernel team or the ftp-masters, are more competent to know what sub-package > and abi change revision are adequate ? I don't believe it's appropriate to give either group authority to do so on their own. Adding packages to the archive is an appropriate point to have a second person review what's going on; that applies to packages maintained by ftpmasters too. > I understand this reticence to thrust > any random maintainer, but the kernel team is handled by competent and > reasonable, Which random maintainers are you saying are neither competent nor reasonable? Furthermore, I know I've spoken with a number of developers who don't think you can be relied upon to handle things "reasonably", so even if that were a sufficient condition to automatically approve NEW packages -- which it isn't -- I'm not convinced it even applies here. > And i would like a real answer to this question, not an authoritative > non-reply like you did last time. Sven, the only thing that will satisfy you is complete compliance with your demands -- you've made that clear in the way you've treated disputes with the d-i team recently, and in other cases in the past. That isn't going to happen, so there's really not much point worrying about what other things you want -- you're going to be upset and complaining no matter what happens. Every single NEW package gets a manual check to see if it's reasonable. That's the policy; it's not going to change because we need manual checks to ensure things don't get out of hand -- archive size, number of packages, consistency of packaging, etc -- and this is a sensible place to do it. If it's causing you problems, there are three solutions: prepare your NEW packages in advance of them becoming necessary, eg by uploading to experimental, so that the loss of time happens earlier when it doesn't matter; reduce the importance and freuqency of your NEW packages so that the delays cause less problems; or if the NEW packages are an important issue for the distro as a whole, work with the ftpmaster team to work out other ways of minimising the delays. Complaining on the lists, and saying that NEW checking isn't needed for your packages might be fun, but isn't going to be effective. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature