Hi Andreas, hi Jonas, hi all, thanks for the reply!!! On Fr 27 Jan 2012 11:44:02 CET Andreas Tille wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:27:40PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...]
[...]
I also would like to add the following: Mike's suggestion needs some dpkg/apt/whatever coding first. It does not help to make good suggestions if you will not come up with patches which you tested for some time and than make the maintainers of this core functionality accepting these patches. This is not an easy job and according to my experience this takes ages.
I am aware of this. Before starting to code comes enrolling people, discussing possibilities, listening to what's already there, listening to other people's ideas, etc. It does not really make sense to start coding into the dark and finding out that it is not at all the way to go.
I'm comparing with how long it took to make apt aware about description translations - and translations is a feature about 50% of all Debian users might really *want*. Unfortunately we need to realise that Blends is - like it or not - a quite unknown topic in the Debian universe even if I try my best to talk about it at any DebConf and other events. I like to quote Peter Eisentraut: "You are talking about something which does not exist." Well, it is not that drastical, but changing the Debian infrastructure on behalf of the needs of Blends is at current state not realistic.
ACK.
However, if we are talking about #311188 I think what we could try to approach is making config issues of Blends RC critical and thus making the bugs we filed against those packages RC critical which in turn would enable us NMUing packages of maintainers which are not willing to help us otherwise. I know that's also not very nice but would solve the problem we are facing and is way more realistic to be solved until June (suggested freeze time).
:-) /me likes this... However, I am rather not thinking about wheezy, this is a short period. For wheezy the Debian Edu goal has to be to release D-E wheezy with the first or second point release of D-E wheezy. Apart from that I hear voices that want to change over to using Git for D-E development (I am one of that voices).
I am pretty sure that anyone interested in blending would be excited if you invent/refine needed mechanisms for above two needs. ...if done Policy compliant - which does *not* mean weaken Policy but (understand reasons for and) obey Policy. I am less sure that anyone else will volunteer to do the work for you, if that's what you are asking. Personally I would not, because I cannot imagine such work bear fruit - i.e. become Debian Policy compliant.Perfectly correct. You just will not manage to convince somebody else to do the work for you. That's why I would suggest to find a way were you can do the work yourself more easy (just do an NMU).
Should we not address this approach (blend bugs = RC critical bugs -> make NMUing possible) on debian-devel ML?
Thanks+Greets, Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb
Attachment:
pgpwqGFK9XZFs.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift