Web lists-archives.com

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In this longish thread I have read one contribution where a developer
> expressed that he was happy about checking his SONAME bumped package
> that was erroneous and luckily ftpmaster found the problem.  (Sorry, I'm
> to lazy to reread the archive for the actual link.)  My point is that
> this was a *single* voice pro-ftpmaster-check-SONAME-changes.  I confirm
> its nice to fix the described error before the package hits the archive
> but the problem would have been spotted most probably afterwards by
> other QA means and the issue could have also be reported by a user via
> BTS.
> All other voices of developers in this thread I have read would have
> prefered a faster processing.

This is not a vote.

But if it somehow is, here's my strong +1 to keeping _technical_ checks
for binNEW.  This includes SONAMEs.

> Several others here gave good reasons why the biased selection is a quite
> bad idea for refreshing license checks.

But here I agree.

License changes are completely unrelated to packaging changes.  Any new
upstream version can include a different license than what was checked.

⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.