Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > Hello, > > On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 12:17pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: >> >>> The docs are public: https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/manpages >> >> Those are helpful even for me as uploading packages to NEW! I wish I >> had read them before. > > Mmm. They sat private access only for ten years, but when I joined the > FTP team I worked to get them published. > >> Is there any policy to forbid or accept uploading two packages A and B >> at the same time to NEW where package A depends on package B? > > No such policy. 'dak inspect-upload' is meant to highlight unmet deps > in red so that we don't ACCEPT them in the wrong order, but we often > miss it. > > IMO it is the maintainer's responsibility to ensure that NEW+unstable > together is always all installable, if you see what I mean.
Thank you for clarifying, and for getting those documents published. What should I do if NEW+unstable becomes uninstallable during the NEW review period? Do you want maintainers to re-upload a newly built binary? I've never done that, but doing so would make sense if you really want maintainers to ensure that NEW+unstable is installable. A binary Go package can have 500+ build dependencies transitively, and the chance of all of those packages staying at the same version in unstable during NEW review period is pretty slim. I guess that you already work around this, because I have only very rarely gotten REJECTS because of this reason (guessing max 3 times), and I know the situation must have occured for several packages that I did get ACCEPT on. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
