On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> (ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve > it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for > it. This seems like an issue for educating sponsors who are sponsoring packages without ensuring the package meets the requisite quality standards. I have personally found that sponsoring a package is, for me, an exercise that takes about two to three times the time I would need to package the software myself, from scratch; but I think this is far from the norm. Perhaps putting together guidelines and processes for the sponsor is something that we should look into? > (2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him > upload rights for virtually every package by adding the DM > to the Uploaders field and adding the DM-Upload-Allowed > field. Hmm. A maintainer like that could as easily et up a process of blindly re-uploading any package they want, really. Unless we educate the DD sponsor, this is a current problem; I agree that the DM procedure might make this less of a hassle for the sponsor. The idea, of course, is that this is supposed to be used only for people who have a demonstrated track record of packaging a specific piece of software, I am not sure how a violation of this assumption is going to be policed/regulated -- but perhaps a first step is working on the guidelines for the sponsor/advocate and the minimal baseline of checks to be performed on the packages before the packages are sponsored/person is advocated for DM. manoj -- "The wisest mind has something yet to learn." -George Santayana Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]