On Friday, March 27, 2020 8:40:11 AM EDT Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/03/20 at 12:23 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > At least during my many years of Ubuntu archive administration I've > > actually seen quite a lot of packages which contained non-distributable > > files, had hilariously broken maintainer scripts (which could then also > > damage *other* software on your system), and the like. For these an > > initial NEW review was quite important. > > > > That proposal is assuming that the "package gets reviewed, a bug is filed" > > step actually happens timely, but that is precisely the problem -- with > > such a workflow we would essentially stop having NEW review and just hope > > that someone catches bad packages before they get released. So IMHO this > > is not a solution, and only causes buggy packages to creep into unstable. > > So in my original mail, I proposed that new packages would get > immediately accepted into unstable, but would still require a review > before migrating to testing. I believe that it's an interesting compromise, > because: > - while in unstable, they would get tested by our regular QA tools, that > are likely to find some of the issues ftpmasters would have found > - it makes it possible for the maintainer to get early feedback from > users, and to continue working on packaging reverse dependencies. > - it's unstable, so even if it's severely broken, it's probably not a > big deal. We have lots of packages in unstable that have been severely > broken for years anyway. > - it protects 'testing' (and our stable releases) from unreviewed > packages. > > Of course this only works if Debian doesn't get sued for copyright > infringement too often. I wonder if that would be a problem (it's > probably less likely to be a problem for packages in 'main' than for > packages in 'non-free'). > > Lucas What's "too often"? Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.