Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:45:44AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> 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).
If you have an NM who's competent to maintain libraries, hand him over so he
can be pushed through as a DD right now. :)
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.