Web lists-archives.com

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 00:30 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 07:27:40PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I know for a fact that quite regularly licence checks on binNEW packages
> > > causes RC bugs to pop up.  I acknowledge it may be a burder for the ftp
> > > team, but that reason alone probably deserves to keep binNEW as it is.
> > 
> > That would seem to justify some sort of randomized spot checks on the
> > archive, not arbitrarily focussing on the subset of packages which
> > happen to need a new binary package for some reason.
> Exactly.

It's almost spring in northern Europe and with the lengthening day I
start getting many crazy ideas. Here's one: it would be truly awesome
if we could review each source package at least once per Debian
release cycle. I don't think that's possible, it would be awesome if
it were.

There is, in unstable, about 28000 source packages right now, if I'm
counting correctly. A release cycle is about two years. That's about
40 source packages per day, every day. That would require either a
very large number of extra volunteer reviewers, or automation.

If most upstreams were systemtically tagging (perhaps using SPDX)
their sources with licence information, or we had a mostly reliable
tool for deducing that information automatically, this might be

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part