On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do > > not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors > > (according to the proposed wording). I'm not sure it is worth though, > > I beg to differ. In the long run, there should not be *any* such > violations in the archive; so it is not really worth spending time > writing code for dak that will shortly be a dead path.
For packages that are now in the archive with lintian errors that would
have prevented them to be uploaded, you're right. However, as a corner
case, you can imagine a new lintian check added 10 years from now, and
that check be used to refuse uploads. All packages upload starting from
now to that moment might be prone to that error. That error would upload
to upload NMUs which do not fix it (but possibly fix other serious
errors).
This argument is moot only if you assume that we will never add a new
check to the dak black list which has at least one matching package in
the archive. Are you sure that will never be the case? I'm not that
confident.
Still, one might argue that this is too much nitpicking for such cases,
and that we should leave with the inability to NMU them unless the
dak-blacklisted bug is fixed too.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
