Web lists-archives.com

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process




I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to replace - not add - to the present system of checking that penalizes uploads of existing source but new binaries. So human resources should not be the issue.

I would imagine that the packages currently being selected are not arbitrary - they are weighted towards library code. Is that fair to say?



On March 7, 2018 12:02:10 AM CST, Chris Lamb <lamby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrey Rahmatullin 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 [..]

Exactly.

Whilst it does seem a little odd, there is some merit the current system
where packages get essentially-arbitrary chosen for a cursory glance by a
member the FTP team.

The team is already rather time-limited so an expectation of DFSG-checks
of random packages already in the archive seems a little optimistic.

(Identifying various types of NEWness might still be marginally useful for
categorising new.html and similar interfaces, mind you.)


Regards,

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.