On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [091101 11:23]: > > Some problems I find with this list:
> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about > what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing > the maximum amount of (free) software the primary goal? There's an expression: "you get what you test for." When you reject packages for failing specific quality checks, this does not ensure that you end up with packages of a higher quality overall, it only ensures that you end up with packages that pass those specific tests. And when the tests you've chosen to enforce are for low-impact issues, as is the case for most of those that I've objected to, then treating these as fatal when we know there are other, *higher* impact bugs that we can't or don't test for results in a distorted focus on passing the test instead of on making the package high-quality throughout. I would much rather see maintainers focus on fixing policy-compliant-but-broken-by-design config file handling in their packages than worrying about whether their package has an extra build-dependency with no practical effect. -- 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/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
