On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 03:04 -0500, Glenn Strauss wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:24:25AM +0000, Phil Wyett wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 20:52 -0500, Glenn Strauss wrote: > > > > > > PLEASE NOTE: **none** of the issues you raised are reported on > > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd > > > > > > PLEASE NOTE: **all** of the issues you raised are present in the prior > > > lighttpd package. Why is this suddenly a blocker to release rather than > > > suggestions for a future release? > > > > The lintian elements raised to be looked at were not blocking. > > I appreciate the response. Please take a moment to review my broader > critique that *everything* in the wall of text you posted was > pre-existing in the lighttpd package and should have been reported on > tracker.d.o, *especially* any issue that would be Release Critical (RC) > blocking for a future release. > > If you review other RFS, kindly highlight the blocking issues separately > from the wall of text on non-blocking issues since outsiders like myself > do not immediately sniff out the Release Critical (RC) policies. > > That said, there are some things which make Debian look very foolish, > such as the waste of resources running a spell checker on binaries implied by > I: lighttpd: spelling-error-in-binary ment meant > [usr/lib/lighttpd/mod_ssi.so] > There is no such "ment" spelling error in lighttpd src/mod_ssi.c and I am > annoyed having wasted my time to contradict the lintian noise. > Debian would look less foolish and maybe lintian would be taken more > seriously if the signal to noise ratio in lintian was much higher. > > > License issues are not detailed on the package tracker unless filed as an > > RC > > bug. I may be in error here and I am sure more correct information will be > > supplied if so. > > So license issues, which are classified as Release Criticial (RC) are > not detailed on the package tracker, but lintian warnings (not RC) are? > I hope you see the incongruity of that. > > Please file some debian bugs, as appropriate, if you think my critiques > of the Debian processes have merit. Thank you. Glenn >
Hi Glenn, Some may say that I review the occasional Request For Sponsorship (RFS). I am pondering and making changes to my review template now after feedback from yourself and others. The everything of the process is something I wish see clearer and make things better to meet most needs that then makes for better quality packages entering Debian via Mentors. Pre-existing issues in a package should be reported as a bug if spotted not in a RFS. If it is spotted in a RFS review, it can be fixed prior to sponsorship or the contributor could state for it to be fixed in a later update. A matter of communication here and consensus reached between contributor, reviewer and/or Debian Developer (DD). Apologies if I left any spelling related lintian items in the review. These I hope a maintainer over time would highlight to upstream and hopefully get fixed. What the package tracker displays is a separate conversation to be had. I understand what you are saying. Not something I have plans to look at. Things can change in Debian if someone has the time and is willing to pick up the baton and run with it. Regards Phil -- Donations... Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg -- "I play the game for the game’s own sake" Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans -- Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg Threads: https://www.threads.net/@kathenasorg --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
