Thomas Viehmann wrote: > The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the > deficiency of NEW processing was necessitated by the rename > iceweasel-l10n-hi to iceweasel-l10n-hi-in introduced in the previous > upload (and processed in 3-4 days or so). This rename took place after > uninstallability of iceweasel-l10n-all had been pointed out to the > maintainer after he asked for an unblock on release. In essence, this > whole trip through NEW would not have happened if the maintainer would > actually routinely install his packages before uploading. I am all in > favor of fast-tracking urgent stuff, but the deal should involve the > maintainer making extra-sure to get things right, too. Because we all know that uninstabillity problems can only occur when you change the package name...
Or undistributable/illegal stuff. Or lintian errors. In that sense, you should perform quality checks and moderate _every_ upload as well. I'm all for doing legal checks and semi-automated quality/sanity checks on the *first* upload. But what's the point on doing it on binary package renames? Crap can be introduced into the archive just as easily without it /ever/ processing NEW. If the source package existed in the archive before it shouldn't pass through NEW! Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for the QA team. The two teams should definitely cooperate, share common patterns and possibly scripts. In that way, all packages can be automatically or semi-automatically checked, even those that don't ever change their package names. Am I the only one that finds all of the above obvious? Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
