binary NEW processing: warning signs, pitfalls, best practices?
jw+debian at jameswestby.net
Wed Feb 17 12:54:03 GMT 2010
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:45:22 -0800, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Does anyone see a reason that this should not be the standard practice? Is
> there something that could be changed (in our documented processes, or in
> the tools) that would make this situation more apparent when processing new
I agree that this should be something that is automated. If it is
something that is desired to be done then you can always do the correct
thing and promote the source before accepting.
There are so many things to remember when processing NEW that I would
appreciate if our tools could warn on problems they can detect.
I'm not sure where the best place to put the functionality for this
would be, whether in q itself, or in some sort of "q-lintian" that
checks a particular queue.
More information about the ubuntu-archive