On Wednesday 03 December 2008 20:35:11 Clint Adams wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:52:06PM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > 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. > > No, this is condescending and implies that the ftp-team knows more about > package quality than the other developers, when that is not true and nor > should it be true as a condition of holding that role.
Then, why should they check for package namespace being sane and archive being legal ? Zero checks means NEW being fast as lightning, no ?. OTOH, ftpmasters might not be familiar with the gory details of a particular piece of software, but are able to catch the most blatant and redundant packaging issues like FTBFSIASW, debian/control breakages, and severe policy violations (mainly FHS) based on their experience. I believe they have seen a lot. -- 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]
