On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 at 12:13:46 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I share your assumption that if we try to get a real random set of
> packages checked instead of checking those who are ending up by random
> reasons in new we will end up with less re-checked packages. However,
> this does not give any good reason for keeping the habit to re-check
> packages where a resulting binary package is not inside the package
> pool.
There is one check that does certainly make sense for new binary packages,
which is: are the new binary package names namespace-polluting? Part
of the purpose of the NEW queue is to stop misleading or inappropriate
names from being used.
I think the reason for the copyright re-check being done at this point
might simply be that the ftp team are looking at the package anyway,
and the tools they're using were primarily designed for source-NEW.
I agree that both the copyright check and the namespace-pollution check
need to be done for source-NEW, and the namespace-pollution check needs
to be done for binary-NEW. I'm less sure about the value of a copyright
check at binary-NEW time.
smcv
