Re: Bug#197049: ITP: conglomerate -- an XML editor for GNOME
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:08:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:14:54PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 08:59:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anyway, conglomerate is still not ready for inclusion in unstable, it
> > > is buggy and dies frequently, i was thinking about doing an
> > > experimental upload only, but i suppose i cannot close the ITP/RFP
> > > bugs in this case, right ?
> > Why not? A package would be available, which is what the submitter
> > requested.
> But in experimental only, and given that experimental has almost no
> visibility, and is difficult and discouraged to use, i would let the
> RFP/ITP bug open, be it only to inform people a package is available in
> experimental, so a new RFP/ITP doesn't get filled.
> I have no experience in uploading new packages to experimental, and
> don't know what the usual practice is in such cases. I guess there were
> few enough such cases that no clear practice exists anyway.
If experimental or unstable would not be suitable, how about using an
unofficial apt repository for it? This would get the package started
along side the earlier developement of the application and might
possibly make it easier to manage in the long run. Once the app and
package reach a more stable point, place that version in experimental or
unstable. Does that seem reasonable or am I missing something?
Matthew P. McGuire <gray AT shadowglade.net> 1024D/E21C0E88
CB82 7859 26B2 95E3 1328 5198 D57A D072 E21C 0E88
When choice matters, choose Debian.