Hello, On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:39am +01, Michael Banck wrote: > Really? Why? Yes. (source: I'm an ftptrainee) > So far I assumed that simple binary package renames due to shared > library bumps or other API transitions where fast-tracked without full > review, perhaps slightly less so for additions or split-offs of e.g. > -data or -doc packages. > > Adding new binaries is an arbitrary (apart from the technical > implementation reason in dak, of course) point in time to recheck a > source package; even more so if this is due to external reasons (binary > name changed to the external API changes, like a PostgreSQL major > version transition). I don't think it's fair to say that it's arbitrary. A new binary package might be added if the library gained Python bindings, say, in which case there would be a pile of new Python code in the package whose copyright and licensing status should be checked. I agree that there might be more sophisticated ways in which we could schedule these rereviews of source packages. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature