Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:16, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:12:34AM +0100, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> > The prospective developer himself reads about the NM process, finds a
> > sentence like 'you should have some package being sponsored' and so
> > builds some package that nobody wants. The Right Way[tm] IMHO to deal
> > with such
>
> This is an excellent point.
>
> Debian suffers, somewhat, from bloat. Against that, we have always
> accepted packages into the distribution unless there was good reason
> not to (legal, normally).
>
> But encouraging people to package unuseful software is certain not
> good..
Are you seriously saying that all useful software has already been packaged?
There are plenty of things on Freshmeat and sourceforge that appear very
useful, but which I haven't tried out because there is no Debian package and
I have no time to compile them.
Here's a list of packages that have been requested (so presumably can't be
considered useless): http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/requested
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: