Hello, On Thu 03 Mar 2022 at 07:36am +01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Sean, > > Am Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:33:35AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton: >> >> I'm sorry to be responding only a month later, but I think there are >> some reasons why binNEW is not the worst place to be doing these extra >> checks: packages with SONAME bumps are typically C or C++ projects and >> these are (i) large, such that d/copyright is more likely to drift >> simply because of the volume of files; and (ii) often contain embedded >> code copies with different copyright and licensing. My own NEW >> experience is that I've consistently found more problems in binNEW >> packages than anywhere else. > > Thanks a lot for your insight into this topic. I'd like to stress my > point (again) that besides I was naively thinking that the checks done > on packages that are passing new due to binary package changes (which > are not only due to changed SONAME) my main point is that I've found > a discrepancy in statements of ftpmaster teams. My question whether > we agree to status A or B[1] was not yet answered (or I missed some > explicit answer). > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > PS: I'm currently considering writing up some summary of the bunch > of threads that was born out of my initial mail. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00226.html Assuming I'm not misreading, the ftpteam currently thinks (B). -- Sean Whitton
