Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > That's a bit weird. He produces a package with a major bug, ignores > *all* hints by lintian and is now rewarded for that by getting upload > permissions?
It's also a bit weird for someone to have their upload ability
immediately removed for making any sort of technical mistake. This is
not the worst[1] mistake I've seen uploaded, nor is it the first time
I've seen a maintainer ignore lintian errors.
(With that said, it looks like Myon has removed him.)
> Also, perhaps this event is a sign that the current review process is
> not perfect yet.
Do you mean the sponsorship review process, or the DM review process?
The worst thing about this to my mind is that the package got sponsored
into the archive over a month ago.
As for DM review, DMs are not supposed to need to know everything that
T&S would test. They're supposed to still be learning, and the DM
process is supposed to be more lightweight than the newmaint process. So
it's ok for a DM to not know how to limit an arch dependent package to
only build on a given set of architectures. It's clearly not acceptable
for them to have created a package a month ago that papers over lintian
errors about including a precompiled binary in an arch indep package.
The most important data I have when I'm reviewing a DM is the advocacy
messages. If I see the AM say, "he's already nearly passed Tasks and
Skills" and a sponsor say, "diligent in looking after his packages and
dealing with bug reports", I have to assume the first adovocacy
statement is accurate, and it's tempting to also assume the second
statement is accurate. I did look at Kartik's open bugs before accepting
him, but the bug hadn't been filed yet. It's important that these messages
be detailed and accurate.
If someone needs to review a DM's existing packages in detail before
they are added, I'd hope the advocates could do that, and discuss the
review in their advocacy messages. But would such a review be any better
than the review the DM's sponsor should have performed before uploading
their package in the first place?
--
see shy jo
[1] The time I uploaded a menu-method file that accidentially did a
rm -rf $FOO/$BAR (FOO=BAR="") as root is my favorite horrible,
deadful, should have gotten me banned from Debian for life mistake.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
