On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 13:34 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > if I want to packge a new upstream version of DM-Upload-Allowed > > library (for example [1]), it changes the name of the binary package > > and thus goes to NEW. > > > > Last time I asked it wasn't possible for me, as a DM, to upload it and > > I had to search for a sponsor.
(and that is just as it should be). > > Is there some policital reason for that, > > Yes. DMs are not as thoroughly checked as DDs, and thus have less > rights to change things in the archive. The idea is that they should be > allowed to upload packages they already maintain, but not add new ones. > This is true both for new source, and new binary packages. What kind of new binary package can be more disruptive than a SONAME bump??? The restrictions exist for good technical reasons. SONAME bumps need careful management across a number of different packages. > A library soname transition is a binary package name change for > technical reasons. IMO there isn't really a good reason to send them > through NEW at all, but that's how the scripts work. It does give others watching NEW a chance to see a pending transition - bumping a SONAME should not be done lightly (especially now). I think that is a good reason. > If you can build consensus on the fact that soname bumps shouldn't go > through NEW, then you could implement that technically. Personally, I think that SONAME bumps in NEW get "fast-tracked" through the queue anyway and I think it is a worthwhile safeguard that should be retained. If SONAME bumps are not to go through NEW in the future, I think it should be mandatory that SONAME bumps go through some other "holding" phase instead - there should be technical restrictions on library transitions and that DM's should still not be allowed to make uploads that involve a SONAME bump. Such a "holding" phase would just be another name for NEW anyway, hence I think it should stay as-is. Dropping this merely for the convenience of DM's when the real problem is delays in NM is trying to fix the wrong problem in the wrong place, IMHO. > But I don't > think you will be able to. In fact, most people might well think that > soname bumps should indeed go through NEW, and that that is not a bug. :-) Most definitely not a bug, IMHO. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
