On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:45:44AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:22:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > Anthony Towns writes ("Two GR concepts for dicussion"): > > > > > I think the process should involve: > > > > > [...] > > > > This sounds like a good idea to me.
> > > > I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be but basically you'd > > > > diff the previous and new packages and allow only certain kinds of > > > > changes (eg, changes to existing programs in /usr/bin would be fine). > > > In what ways can maintainers of packages generally screw over users of > > > other packages? Don't people notice fairly soon and certainly before > > > the packages are out of unstable? > > > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent > > > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs. > > If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be > > mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy. > Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining > libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the > archive will also encourage people to join NM). If you have an NM who's competent to maintain libraries, hand him over so he can be pushed through as a DD right now. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]