Re: [PROPOSAL] 3. RfD on new debian java policy
--- Jan Schulz <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >I don't think you could force a maintainer to include a VM in his
> >package list, as you can't force packagers to trust people ('so it
> >works, eh? did you run the regression tests? can I have the result
> >files?'), but the policy should encourage the packagers to work with
> >their users and the upstream to provide support for as many VM
> >enviroments as possible, through relying on co-maintainers, and
> >knowledgeable users to handle those VM environments they have no
> >access to.
> I will include the wording of one of the other mails, which goes in
> this direction. A maintainer has to include all 'tested and working
> VM', but more or less its the maintainers descision to choose what
> 'tested enough' means.
> It will mean that Ic an file bugreports about this, so I'm happy :)
I told you we'd work out a compromise that makes us botrh happy ;)
> >Of course, this depends how strictly defined the
> >co-maintainer status is, i.e. can you be a co-maintainer/test dude
> >without being a debian developer?
> Yes, of course. I'm not a DD and I maintaine eclipse through Takshi
> Okamoto, who sponsors me until I'm finished with my NM application.
> Only a DD can upload packages to teh debian archiv, so this must be
> either done via one of the maintainer or by a sponsor.
Good luck for that.
> Jan, fed up with learning and having a break :)
And for the exam, too.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software