On Wednesday 03 December 2008 19:28:04 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 03/12/08 at 17:21 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I'm not advocating that we just stop doing reviews. But IMHO, NEW > > > processing should be about the legal problems, not about the random > > > lintian warning/errors, and the various other packaging malpractices. > > > > At least package namespacing issues also seem rather relevant here. > > Right. Legal problems, and problems related to archive maintainance.
I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of bugs in Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for autobuilders caused by these subsequent uploads meant to bring the package(s) in a technically sane shape, that is what would have been rejected by the ftpmasters in the first place. So, it is much better these to be detected and probably rejected before doing any more harm on their way. Low quality packages won't help users either, nor these users get the finally fixed and brought into relatively sane shape package faster. [1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
