Hello, On Tue 09 Jul 2019 at 08:45AM -04, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Why is it, then, that binary-NEW still applies if there have been no > source files added/removed? (A SONAME bump possibly being necessitated > by some change that does not involve adding/removing/renaming source > files.) For the addition to the binary package namespace to be reviewed. > Following on that, what about a package that does add/remove source > files (perhaps many) without a SONAME bump or other change that results > in a new binary package? Same again. > It seems like reviewing the package name space on introduction of a new > binary package and an additional review of a SONAME bump are good things > and the binary-NEW criteria seem to fit. However, the "there might be > new source files with licensing issues" does not seem to be a good fit > for binary-NEW criteria. Not to say that it matters much in the context > of binary-NEW. But if catching potential licensing issues associated > with large source changes is in fact something which the FTP team wishes > to be able to do, it probably warrants a different filter than "adds a > new binary package to the archive" in order to be effective. The FTP team can't check every single upload, so I guess that at some point someone decided that checking every binary-NEW upload was a sensible compromise. More sophisticated filtering on what gets checked would probably be a good idea, but that would need someone to implement it. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
