Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I quite liked the idea of allowing to set such attributes in the control
> file because, rather than looking like someone putting their nose on how
> one maintains packages, they are a handy way to document the
> maintainer's intentions with the package, providing a service to the
> maintainer: for example, if I mark a package dead-upstream, then people
> posting wishlist bugs will hopefully take that into account (and
> reportbug may remind them about it). People adopting a "fringe" package
> for heavy production will have been warned and hopefully will do some
> extra testing, and so on.
Both approachs are probably complementary. Using the control file works
fine for things which are specific to the package (dead-upstream) or when
there is only one maintainer but when you have a package with multiple
maintainers, the active/passive classification is really different for
The goal is also to discover cases where we have several co-maintainers
where everyone thinks that they are backup maintainers and that it's the
duty of someone else to handle this bug. For this, debian/control is not
suited at all.
And when creating the debtags data, we need to have some rules to merge
the views of each co-maintainer in a global coherent view.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :