On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 05:17:56AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > as I just wrote to Joerge, I am not refering to the initial upload of a > > > brand-new package which warrants such attention, but the upload for bug > > > fixes and new upstream. If someone uploads Bash, its a pretty safe bet > > > that the license is not going to change but if it did, all that would be > > > required is to change this 'tag' and then have an automated check > > > compare 'tag' with 'oldtag' and flag this upload as requireing a license > > > re-cert. > > > > In your example the package doesnt even hit the NEW queue as long as no > > binary package name changes. > Hi Michael, > as I just emailed, my brain is addled at the moment so I did not > represent an accurate senario involving NEW. There are 2 cases: a > brand new packages and any subsequent upload to NEW. I expect the brand > new package to get a through inspection, but once it would be 'tag'ed, > it should not need a re-examination until the 'tag' value was different > from previous uploads to NEW.
Sorry, but please examine how NEW work. Really NEW packages are carefully examined by ftp-master. When a binary package name changes uploads go to NEW queue mainly because the list of allowed packages need to be edited by ftp-master. This doesnt mean the package gets fully scanned by ftp-master again. He/she can of course but that is afaik not what ftp-master does all the time. Cheers, Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
