Hi,
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that in Debian, we would aim for a better separation between:
>
> A/ QA tools development, focused on getting the good tools to analyze
> packages (output: tools, as Debian packages)
>
> B/ infrastructure that mass-process the archive usin
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:49 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> C/ infrastructure that gathers the current status from all instances of
> (B) and exposes it per-package, per-maintainer, per-team, etc.
For some data, such as Lintian packaging hints, there may be a
powerful combination of AMQP and P
Hi Lucas,
TL;DR please find one idea to solve your issue below
> provide the current
> status of the archive against the current version of lintian as
> something parsable
Just for lintian.d.n (which is about to be transferred to
lintian.d.o), that is exactly what we provide. It just won't be on
(Adding debian-qa@ to Cc to broaden the discussion a bit)
Hi,
On the issue of lintian.d.n/lintian.d.o/UDD/tracker.d.o, I wonder if the
separation of concerns is the right one.
I think that in Debian, we would aim for a better separation between:
A/ QA tools development, focused on getting the g
4 matches
Mail list logo
