Re: gtk-gnutella
Hi Martin,
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> We might accept gtk-gnutella for volatile-sloopy, but not in the current
> state of the package.
I can remember having read something about volatile-sloppy; maybe back in
some announcement message. But there is nothing about it at
http://volatile.debian.net/ nor at
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-volatile/ . I can't remember anything
about volatile-sloppy but "the requirements are a bit lower then for
volatile".
BTW, since the latter website has more information than the .net one,
someone should put at least a link to the .org address. Google's first page
for the keywords `debian volatile' doesn't list the site at .org .
> BTW, if you, dear reader of debian-volatile@lists.debian.org, think our
> decision is wrong, try to convince us. It's not only up to Andi and me
Well, I don't care about gtk-gnutella (yet). But surely an 18M unified diff
is an indicator something is seriously wrong. But why is there such a big
difference? Has the maintainer changed and/or has she introduced a new
packaging? Has upstream changed and/or decided to rewrite big parts of it?
As I think about these questions, I think, the volatile website could
contain something like the following under "debian-volatile for developers":
"If your package got rejected but you still want it to see in volatile, you
might ask for help in the usual place, e. g. the debian-devel mailing list.
If you do so, it might be a good idea to inform the volatile list about it,
best with a pointer to where the thread starts. (The Message-ID of your
e-mail is enough if it goes to a list at lists.debian.org. Your message can
then be found by http://lists.debian.org/~asuffield/msgid.php/<msg-id>
thanks to Andrew Suffield.)"
> to decide what goes in and what not, but currently it seems it is only
> Andi and me inspecting the packages. Sure we have the last word, as we
> need to accept it on the ftp-server, but we only humans and might make
> mistakes. Speak with us, only that gives us the possibility to get a
> clue what our users whould like to have on volatile.
The last sentence seems a bit contradictorily to me. Some messages back, the
answer to a mail with "I'd like to see package foo in volatile" was
something like "Only the maintainer of foo might ask for inclusion", IIRC
there was even something like "Don't file wishlist bugs against bar asking
for inclusion into volatile". I got the impression, the users had to
"secretly convince" the maintainer to upload to volatile.
Maybe it is a good idea to put some sentences about user wishes to the
volatile website. Is a non-maintainer-initiated discussion desired here, a
non-DD-initiated one also? If so, maybe say something like "If you as an
user would like to discuss the inclusion of some changes of a package into
volatile, please also put the package Maintainer's e-mail address into the
Cc: field, since it it very likely he is not subscribed to the list. You can
find out the address as follows: ..."
Greetings,
Mike
Reply to: