Loïc Martin wrote: > 1. Is it possible to review what are the most frequent packaging errors, > and how much of these can be picked up by a few scripts? > > IMHO, most new contributors would omit debian/copyright, or tend to > indicate the wrong Ubuntu version (i.e. the stable release instead of > the development one, since at first you're not going to know about SRU > policy), leave the Debian one, forget to fill some fields in > debian/control, include binaries, etc... > > Could it be possible to automate most of these checks and others, so > each uploader would get feedback on the first screening errors ( a > process which, at the moment, can take 2+ weeks)?
There's lintian for this, which runs on REVU against the source packages (not the binaries). Unfortunately, most packagers don't seem to check lintian output against their packages (including binaries). That's usually the first comment some reviewers leave (including myself), and in some cases that's most of what needs to be fixed. So I think mailing lintian's output to the uploader would be a good idea. And ideally that would be against source and binaries, at least for the first upload... although that would place a high load on REVU's host. But maybe with the new one Stefan just announced, we could change this? :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
