Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > While I can understand your frustration, your argument looks flawed to > me. The measure of refusing _automatically_ uploads being affected by > (certain) lintian errors can not be classified as "a new duty", > precisely because it will be automatic. Actually, it has even chances > to reduce the work-load related to processing NEW.
Hi Stefano, this is only the first half of the plan, and I completely agree with it. But according to Luk, packages introducing a new override will be parked to NEW for examination. This is the problematic part. (4a604816.5030...@debian.org). We are removing normalisation and discussion in favor of power-based enforcement. What will be the criteria for deciding that an override is correct? I guess it will follow the same logic as for the copyright summary: correct if a member of the FTP team thinks it is correct. What is the point having a Policy if we follow that path? I also understand the frustration of the release team, but to me, hijacking or removals are the appropriate response to irresponsible behaviours, not a set of extra rules for which our current experience already expose a flaw: think about changes in names of binary packages that trigger copyright checks by the FTP team. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
