On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:22:05PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the > task the project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning
And indeed, the proposal [1] (or at least my proposal) is to let dak automatically reject on lintian basis, with no need for ftp-masters to fiddle with that. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/msg00184.html That to me would look like not as an additional job that the project asked ftp-masters to do, but rather as a (sane) extra QA step. It it were detectable, I'd love to reject also automatically packages which were not built with cowbuilder/pbuilder/..., which were not installed by the uploader before uploading, and so on and so forth. That has nothing to do with power (or with personal battles against ftp-masters, FWIW), just plain QA. And if you argue that lintian can be sometimes dumb in checking, I for sure concur, it is just a program after all. To "fight" that, we give uploaders the power of overrides and to "someone" the power of tuning lintian parameters. To me, the most natural choice of someone looks like ftp-masters, just because they do maintainer dak. If people are uneasy about that other choices can be: - the lintian maintainers - the QA team - the policy editors - the CTTE - ... add yours ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
