On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 19:18 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:34:28PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > What might be reasonable is making the separation between binNEW and srcNEW
> > more obvious, especially for us on the other side. This would also
> > encourage the ftpmasters to skip license checks for binNEW -- but again,
> > without knowing their workflow I'm not in a position to improve it.
> I know for a fact that quite regularly licence checks on binNEW packages
> causes RC bugs to pop up. I acknowledge it may be a burder for the ftp
> team, but that reason alone probably deserves to keep binNEW as it is.
That would seem to justify some sort of randomized spot checks on the
archive, not arbitrarily focussing on the subset of packages which
happen to need a new binary package for some reason.