On Sunday 25 November 2007, Joey Hess wrote: > Steve McIntyre wrote: > > In this particular case, the problem is much worse than just a single > > bug in a package - it's a total failure in the sponsorship > > system. > > From what Ramakrishnan and other sponsors wrote on this thread, it > sounds like Kartik was a frequent and active sponsee who did a lot of > uploads. My experience with sponsoring such people is that you come to > trust that they know what they're doing, and over time review their > packages less thuroughly before sponsoring. You still run lintian each > time, but you don't go looking for absurd lintian overrides[1]. You still > download pristine source for new releases from upstream, but you don't > examine every line of the sponsor's diff for potential backdoors. I > think this is only human nature, and it parallels how we treat upstreams > too (few developers review every line of the *upstream* changes for > potential backdoors..).
Nice pleadings, but you seem to conclude that this was the only *absurd* action [1] in their sponsoree/sponsor communication. What if they have been doing absurd sponsoree packaging, loose or no sponsor checking from the very begining ? What if that is not a unfortunate coincidence, but their general style and tendency ? [1] note that people are frighten not by the technical mistake (i.e. no maintainer is perfect), but the way it was suppressed (i.e. every maintainer should have a common sense and basic quality). -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]