Web lists-archives.com

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

Hi Steve,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:57:31PM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:00:57 AM CST Gert Wollny wrote:
> > I'd like to make a proposal how
> > transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> > review packages could be improved.
> I have an orthogonal proposal to enhance efficiency: stop re-examining each 
> new SOVERSION of a shared library package.
> The NEW queue is said to be for "when a new package is uploaded to Debian for 
> the first time" [1].  For many packages, uploading a new upstream version goes 
> straight into unstable.  This is not true, however, for shared library 
> packages.  Because of the convention that a shared library package name 
> contains the SOVERSION and the convention that any new binary package requires 
> going through NEW -- each and every new upstream makes a trip through NEW.  
> This is unnecessary work for FTP masters and unnecessary friction.
> Solution: change the convention to "any new SOURCE package requires a trip 
> through NEW".

Fully agreed.  I'm not sure whether the bug in DAK described here[2]
which also forces packages through NEW which do not even have a name
change but have no binary but just a source package in the archive will
address this.

I had the discussion above with ftpmaster before and the argument is
that it is sensible to re-check random packages from time to time and
so checking new SOVERSION packages is one way to do so.  My argument
that actually this is *not* a *random* selection was not answered.

Kind regards


> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/NewQueue
[2] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/2018-March/060615.html