On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > In this longish thread I have read one contribution where a developer > expressed that he was happy about checking his SONAME bumped package > that was erroneous and luckily ftpmaster found the problem. (Sorry, I'm > to lazy to reread the archive for the actual link.) My point is that > this was a *single* voice pro-ftpmaster-check-SONAME-changes. I confirm > its nice to fix the described error before the package hits the archive > but the problem would have been spotted most probably afterwards by > other QA means and the issue could have also be reported by a user via > BTS. > > All other voices of developers in this thread I have read would have > prefered a faster processing.
This is not a vote. But if it somehow is, here's my strong +1 to keeping _technical_ checks for binNEW. This includes SONAMEs. > Several others here gave good reasons why the biased selection is a quite > bad idea for refreshing license checks. But here I agree. License changes are completely unrelated to packaging changes. Any new upstream version can include a different license than what was checked. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can. ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.
