Le Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:28:02PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >The problem is an undermanned ftpmaster team [0], so help there is
>
> I have to object here. If I read something like:
> <XXX> please reject YYY
> <XXX> forgot to add the full MPL 2.0 text..
> I wonder why this hadn't been checked before the upload.
> If all maintainers would do their homework, the situation of NEW
> might be much better. I estimate that 80% of all packages in NEW,
> that are older than two weeks, do have a problem like above.
> So dear fellow maintainers, although it is quite boring, please pay
> more attention to the Debian Policy.
Hi Thorsten,
I fully agree.
A few years ago, I made a proposal for peer-reviewing copyright files in the
NEW queue.
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
The goal is not to substitute for the inspection by the FTP Master team, but to
correct defects before their review, therefore saving their time.
I have done a few dozens of these reviews and share Thorsten's impression in
general (althouth in my opinion 80 % is quite an upper-range estimate…).
I encourage everybody who uploads to the NEW queue to review some packages in
exchange. To help people reviewing your package, please make sure that a
copy is accessible (source packages in the NEW queue are not accessible outside
the FTP Master team).
(Regarding the requests for removal from the NEW queue, perhaps somebody can
write a patch to DAK so that it can be dealt with a DAK command file ?)
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140806115506.gb13...@falafel.plessy.net
