Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
[honouring m-f-t]
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:22:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes ("Two GR concepts for dicussion"):
> > > > I think the process should involve:
> > > > [...]
> > > This sounds like a good idea to me.
> > > I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be but basically you'd
> > > diff the previous and new packages and allow only certain kinds of
> > > changes (eg, changes to existing programs in /usr/bin would be fine).
> > In what ways can maintainers of packages generally screw over users of
> > other packages? Don't people notice fairly soon and certainly before
> > the packages are out of unstable?
> > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent
> > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs.
> If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be
> mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy.
Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining
libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the
archive will also encourage people to join NM).
I really do think that an easy reovcation procedure where a few (2? 3?)
DDs can sign mails to remove a DM from the keyring is the way to
moderate this. This could even be automated.
--
----------( "This isn't flying, it's falling with style" -- )----------
Simon ----( Buzz Lightyear )---- Nomis
Htag.pl 0.0.22
Reply to: