On Tue, 16 May 2006 18:35:36 -0500, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My idea was not to put any additional load on ftp-master and to have > automatic rejects for that reason. If they have to decide what's wrong > with a package, they could as well explain it themselves to the > uploader, since it would take the sponsor the same time to figure it > out. I didn't mean that ftp-master should decide whether or not there's anything wrong with the package. My idea was that ftp-master could decide either: - this looks like a trivial packaging change, so we can let this one in or - this looks like a non-trivial packaging change, and I don't have time to look at it to see if it's correct. Please find a sponsor to look over it. If the sponsor says that it looks OK, then I'll take a closer look at it. (Of course, a responsible maintainer would know to find a sponsor for his package before he uploads it, if he knows that the packaging change is non-trivial, so ideally, ftp-master shouldn't need to make this rejection. Ideally...) > Oh, and a SONAME bump is a highly non-trivial thing, don't assume > others maintain a whole bunch of libraries like you do :) Well, it's more trivial than some of the package reorganizations that I'm currently working on. ;) -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
