> IMHO you are expecting too much from your applicants. The description > of the T+S check (from http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step4) says > > The applicant must provide assurance that > they can, in fact, do the job for which they have volunteered. > > I think that using debehelper for building a package is absolutely > acceptable, since this is what most of us do when building our > packages. Building a package with debhelper is fine, if they know what goes on behind the scenes. Blindly following the template of dh_make is Bad, with a capital B. I still believe that forcing applicants to do a package without debhelper (even if they'll never do another) is a good thing, because they will _know_ what's going on behind. > Frankly, I'm not sure whether I would have passed at the time of my > own application the T+S check by the criteria you propose. When I applied, I wouldn't have passed, however, I was willing to learn, so I could read some docs, and figure out how to do it without debhelper, if I would have been asked to. If it would have been a requirement, so what? I would have spent a few hours figuring it out, for it is _not_ hard. In fact, it's quite easy. > I don't think that the increase of filesize is a problem here. It seems > rather to be a question of elegance and purity. Then one should admit > that people may have different ideas of what is elegant. Agreed.
Description: PGP signature