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 <la...@debian.org> 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, > >-- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk > `- -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
