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