On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Packages that only add new binary components are already sorted above > packages that have completly new source, to decrease their time in the > queue, as their checks are much faster done than a complete source > review. But even those have a little review from us, enough people > manage to even get those done wrong. Love empty packages? soname changes > like to do that to people, for example.
And checks for critical bugs, such as empty packages, are a good thing to have in place. I'm glad this is done as part of binary NEW processing. The problem is when packages are rejected for things that aren't critical bugs - even, in some cases, for bugs that don't follow from Policy or the DFSG. The ftp team should not presume in such cases that it's their place to block these packages from the archive. > Note that we currently are working on integrating lintian into dak in a > way that lets us autoreject on selected lintian tags. That will help NEW > a little too, even if NEW is the smallest driving force for this change. Applying the same quality standards to NEW and non-NEW uploads is good. By what process will the selection of lintian tags be submitted to the project for review and approval prior to implementation as a hard reject? What is the plan for tracking bugfixes to the lintian checks themselves on an ongoing basis? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
