Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:22, Thomas Seyrat wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > Here's a list of packages that have been requested (so presumably can't
> > be considered useless): http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/requested
>
> I packaged a requested software (see #120912), plus a related one, put
> both on http://glou.net/~thomas/debian/ with full source, posted to
> debian-mentors, put my name and description for both packages on the
> sponsorship program web page, and ... got _absolutely_ no answer.
>
> Now, my question is : are these packages totally unuseful to Debian ?
> And, if so, should I go on searching wnpp for something hopefully
> useful, package it again, and get the same result, no sponsor or
> advocate ?
It's not a matter of them not being useful to Debian. It's a matter of them
not being useful to the Debian maintainers who have time for sponsorship.
If you packaged a new benchmark then I'd sponsor you because that interests
me. IDS doesn't at the moment (sorry).
But you should be able to go through the usual new maintainer process
anyway...
--
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: