Re: Should DMs be allowed to upload to NEW

2008-07-04 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le Wednesday 16 April 2008 15:44:56 Neil Williams, vous avez écrit : >> An upload of a new application is nowhere near as complex as the upload >> to start a library SONAME transition. Even uploading a new library never >>

Re: Should DMs be allowed to upload to NEW

2008-04-16 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Romain Beauxis [Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:53:21 +0100]: > In the mean time, it's still possible for a DM to upload a different soname > in > the same binary package, which would result in an even worse mess, right ? Well, DDs have done this in the past already, so... -- Adeodato Simó

Re: Should DMs be allowed to upload to NEW

2008-04-16 Thread Romain Beauxis
Le Wednesday 16 April 2008 15:44:56 Neil Williams, vous avez écrit : > An upload of a new application is nowhere near as complex as the upload > to start a library SONAME transition. Even uploading a new library never > seen in Debian before is easier than starting a SONAME transition for a > libra

Re: Should DMs be allowed to upload to NEW

2008-04-16 Thread Neil Williams
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 15:59 +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > Thanks for the reply. As I said, I am not questioning new SONAME bumps > going into NEW. > > The question is, whether the DMs should be allowed to upload SONAME > bumps to NEW by themselves or not. Umm, I would have to say no. Sorry. SONA