Re: Proposal: The future of the Debian NM process
On Tue, 16 May 2006 18:35:36 -0500, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> said:
> My idea was not to put any additional load on ftp-master and to have
> automatic rejects for that reason. If they have to decide what's wrong
> with a package, they could as well explain it themselves to the
> uploader, since it would take the sponsor the same time to figure it
> out.
I didn't mean that ftp-master should decide whether or not there's
anything wrong with the package. My idea was that ftp-master could
decide either:
- this looks like a trivial packaging change, so we can let this one in
or
- this looks like a non-trivial packaging change, and I don't have time
to look at it to see if it's correct. Please find a sponsor to look
over it. If the sponsor says that it looks OK, then I'll take a
closer look at it.
(Of course, a responsible maintainer would know to find a sponsor for
his package before he uploads it, if he knows that the packaging
change is non-trivial, so ideally, ftp-master shouldn't need to make
this rejection. Ideally...)
> Oh, and a SONAME bump is a highly non-trivial thing, don't assume
> others maintain a whole bunch of libraries like you do :)
Well, it's more trivial than some of the package reorganizations that
I'm currently working on. ;)
--
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: