Web lists-archives.com

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:11:48PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> > How do you want to achieve this with a source package that has 13k+
> > source files and where upstream does not provide a standard license
> > header for each file? I.e. there is some license text and it needs to
> > be quoted, but licensecheck doesn't detect the license or doesn't
> > detect the copyright entry, so one has to manually inspect many files
> > to get it right. 
> If upstream and the package uploader togehter don't make the copyright
> status so clear it's easy for ftp master (or anyone else) to review,
> then yes, I think we'd be better off with not adding that software to
> Debian. Ftp master time is a scarce resource, I think we should try to
> be careful of how we spend it.

I Gert's initial mail he wrote that the second pass of the package took
six monthes.  So ftpmaster has managed to do the large amount of work.
The question was how we can make dealing with the remaining issues that
should probably cost less work then one day more efficient.
> > Do you really want to reject these packages outright from Debian, even
> > though they follow the DFSG?
> Do we really want to pile on more work on an already busy team just so
> you can do less?

IMHO this question does not fit the problem Gert wants to address.  My
answer to it would be:  I'm fine if ftpmaster is taking low hanging
fruits first.  The question what is actually a low hanging fruit and how
we can make fruits hanging lower remains unanswered.

Another very personal opinion:  For my definition of "universal
operating system" also complex packages belong to our targets.

Kind regards