On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:48:08AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) an upload to experimental with > > 2) all of the issues that have been identified as RC filed as RC > > bugs against the package with > > 3) acceptance into sid occuring only when the RC bugs which have > > a serious negative impact on the internet in large fixed and > > 4) acceptance into testingg occuring as usual with > > 5) an RM "unacceptable for release" RC bug filed until the RMs > > have a chance to come to a determination > > be an acceptable compromise for the ftpmasters and the prospective > > Qmail maintainer(s)? (Or at least, a start towards something that > > could possibly be compromised on?) > +1. > I find this suggestion to be much more in line with our current > procedures. > I'm particularly uneasy with letting the ftpmasters decide > what's acceptable in the Debian archive on some non-usual policy > requirements that can be difficult to justify. On the contrary, I think the ftp team's behavior has been commendable here; they believe qmail is sufficiently buggy that it's unsuitable for the archive, but recognize that there are different opinions on this question among Debian developers and that this decision is grounded in reasons that fall outside the normal reasons for package rejects, so they have referred the question to the TC. Individual developers make decisions all the time about whether software is Too Buggy To Live, when they decide whether or not a package should be uploaded yet to the archive. The ftpmasters also have to make decisions on the same question when they do NEW processing. In the rare cases when the ftp team and the uploader reach a different conclusion, it's altogether reasonable to ask the TC to adjudicate. > I'm not saying that we must let any crap enter the archive but when we > have a maintainer and some reasonably popular piece of software, we > should accept it in the archive. Note: it's not the same as accepting it > in our stable release where all our usual criteria do apply. I don't agree that popularity + maintainer activity are sufficient to justify allowing a package into the archive. Put another way: I don't believe that the sets "software that's reasonably popular and has a maintainer" and "crap" are disjoint. (I'm not saying that qmail must not be allowed in the archive; I'm only saying that it's not a foregone conclusion that we should allow it in because there's a Debian developer who wants it there.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
