On 18/04/18 01:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed: > we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not > have been copied over to another package.
I'm sure people don't request those reviews because they don't know or because they forget. A lintian warning could help, or ftp-masters enforcing an ack. Though I'd prefer the former as I wouldn't like NEW to have another bottleneck. > If someone wants to drive an effort to make -V a must for udebs in > policy, that's probably fine. It doesn't strike me as ultimately needed > (we've lived without it for quite some time because maintainers tend to > just do the right thing), but if people have spare time, go for it. It's not in policy (but I don't think it has to be), but following the conversation on #-ftp yesterday I opened: #895949 lintian: warn about packages with udebs but no udeb line in shlibs #895953 lintian: check that shlibs-version >= higher-version-symbols-file The latter wouldn't enforce -V, but would check that we at least get a high enough version in shlibs as compared to the .symbols file (and would have solved the zstd problem). Cheers, Emilio
