Re: 'unsupported packages' (was Re: uugetty?)
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Craig Sanders wrote:
> As an added bonus, you also get the satisfying feeling of putting
> something worthwhile back into debian!
At least some preservation of config files should be done additionally
to the simple control file setup.
> Maybe there should be an 'unsupported' directory for packages which
> have been released but don't have an active maintainer...or is this
> what 'contrib' is for? Also, allow any package in 'unsupported' can be
> adopted by anyone who takes the time to actively maintain it.
That's okay so far but it doesn't guarantee bug maintainance. Assume all
those folks going to install some of these packages and run into
No problem for the experienced user but quite annoying to all the
members of the mailing lists dealing with supported packages.
> encourage this? Does the benefit of having lots of extra packages
> outweigh the disadvantage of having bug reports about unsupported
That's what really could be a problem.
Generally packaging "unsupportet" files would be okay as long as those
packages are marked UNSUPPORTET or orpahned. If someone adopts it it can
make its way into one of the common directories with a small comment
"adopted 96xxxx by John Doe" + "Maintainer : "
Any suggestions ?
Steffen R.Mueller __ ___ _ _ email: email@example.com
NTG Netzwerk und Telematic GmbH \ \/ / (_)_ __ | | __ fax : +49 721 9652 210
Geschaeftsbereich Xlink \ /| | | '_ \| |/ / phone: +49 721 9652 211
Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 / \| | | | | | < RIPE : SM25-RIPE
D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_/\_\_|_|_| |_|_|\_\ WWW.Xlink.net/~steffen