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

Re: Proposal: The future of the Debian NM process



Re: Hubert Chan 2006-05-16 <87r72tq0ur.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca>
> > 6. can use his gpg key to upload this package [2]
> >    -> no account/@d.o address yet
> >    -> every upload which would go to NEW needs a sponsor [3,4]
> 
> I think it may be good to allow the sponsor to decide when the DM is
> allowed to make uploads without a sponsor when he/she is satisfied that
> the DM knows what he's doing with the package.  e.g. simple packages may
> just need a single upload.  More complicated packages (e.g. libraries,
> if the DM doesn't have previous experience packaging libraries) may need
> a bit more oversight by the sponsor before he/she is satisfied.

Whether we activate that per maintainer or per maintainer-package
combination is also something we have to discuss. (If we go into that
direction at all.)

> > [3] Do we allow existing sources with new binaries to go to new?
> > (Library renames etc.)
> > -> has to be discussed
> 
> We could leave this up to ftp-master.  e.g. for a simple SONAME bump,
> they can accept the package.  For more complicated package
> reorganizations, they can reject with a request for a sponsor.

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. Oh, and a SONAME bump is a highly non-trivial thing, don't assume
others maintain a whole bunch of libraries like you do :)

Christoph

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: