On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If one were to analyze the packages submitted in the last 6 months >> (SUBMITTED, not only accepted), one might find an odd peak in the >> frequency of things containing /usr/local in the last month or so. >> Dont know why, it just happens sometimes > > Well, this indicates a problem in the way the release process is > currently operating then, even when looking at this 6 month window. > The original 5.10 release wasn't flagged for this but you indicate the > tools have not changed. This means that your process is not being > applied routinely.
Yes. I have to apologise for this. Sometimes I make the "mistake" of "trusting maintainers" :-} Bad release manager, bad! I need to stop doing that! :-D I did not apply checkpkg and pore over the results for that release. If memory serves, it was released as part of a mass dump of packages. I did not have the time to peruse the output fully for checkpkg for all the packages. But Peter said he had done a lot of checking on it, and I think Dago and someone else had been assisting, so I thought "okay, multiple eyes have been on it, I dont know much about perl, so I'll just pass it through". For that sort of reason, I usually have left the perl package without deep scrutiny. Particularly since there are a mess of non-critical "/usr/local" flags in it. But, now that the tool lets me more easily separate ignorable warnings, from potentially more important ones, I took a closer look. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
