On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:11PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote: > > >> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and > >> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of > >> documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?) > > Don't you think maintainers are big enough to know how to handle this kind > > of > > decisions ? > > NO. > For many of them this is a clear no. Unfortunately.
To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ? > Automated NEW is IMO a thing we should never do. Semi-automated was the proposal, with a delayed acceptance (a week or so) where the ftp-masters can take positive action to prevent the automated NEW handling. No risk, if a packages is exageratedly splitted, they get the email about it, notice it is exageratedly splitted, and veto it, and normal NEW behavior follows. We could even imagine an automated analysis, which would differentiate unproblematic modifications (a few new packages of moderate size for example), or policy-mandated NEW (same packages with just a different ABI version number, or a new kernel package), and provide them to ftp-masters via email and a keyword in the subject allowing this classification and easy filtering of problematic packages. Mmm, i will try to find time to flesh out this proposal and propose code for it. Now if the existing code was written in a reasonable language :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
