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 using QA tools. (output: > current status of each package in Debian, analyzed with the latest > version of a given tool, as a parsable file) > > C/ infrastructure that gathers the current status from all instances of > (B) and exposes it per-package, per-maintainer, per-team, etc. > > (C) could even be split into: > (C.1) infrastructure that gathers the status and stores it into a > common DB; > (C.2) infrastructure that uses (C.1) to provide useful > per-package/per-maintainer frontends (views).
Fully agreed on this. tracker.debian.org is clearly in the scope of (C) but started to move into (B), but once I realized this I decided that it would be better to have a separate project, that's how I ended up designing "debusine". See https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/blob/master/docs/devel/why.rst As I announced a few days ago, I will invest Freexian's money in this project so you're welcome to watch the project (in gitlab speak, aka enable notifications) so that you can contribute to its design. The first milestone will be oriented towards package building, not lintian processing but I'm happy to include this in the roadmap at some point. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
