Le Mer 14 octobre 2009 20:56, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net>
writes:
NM> This is something for the BADURL script or autoqa, IMHO. The ROI on
NM> doing it manually, and only on the initial submission, is pretty
NM> low.
Well, so far I've caught many, many instances of improper URLs, several
cases where the packager had modified the tarball and not realized that
was problematic, and a few instances where the tarball needed to be
modified but the packager hadn't documented the reasons or the necessary
changes in accordance with our guidelines. All of those are things that
need to be done in review, before the import, because the point is to
actually check the packages before they're imported to guard against
errors where the packager simply isn't aware of the proper way to do
things.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that last time I asked to add something to
the checklist FPC/FESCO argued is was too long already and even if there were
many many cases where it caused problems later on it was not worth listing it
explicitely. The checksum test is clearly in the same category (and even less
worth it because it's already checked automatically).
Letting crap get in and then mailbombing the packager with
autoqa mail (which doesn't even exist at this point) isn't friendly to
either the packager or the distribution.
Well I'm afraid I've now spent quite a long time writing a mailbomber, because
I was told the checklist is of-limits for rules that only catch marginal
problems. I really do not see what makes the checksum test any more special or
useful.
--
Nicolas Mailhot