[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Asking the upstream author

On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 11:54:19PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Fabien Ninoles <fabien@Nightbird.TZoNE.ORG> writes:
> > The other problem is that the upstream author maybe give the
> > permissions to someone else. Worst, it can happen that someone ask the
> > upstream author, make some arrangements with him (like waiting for the
> > next release or patch/bug forwarding, etc.), establish a kind of
> > relationship, then make the ITP (not long after the initial request to
> > the upstream authors) to discover that the package is already ITPed by
> > someone else who doesn't contact the upstream authors...
> Hmm, an alternative solution that works better with apparent practise
> would be to ITP first, /then/ ask the upstream author. If she requests
> some longer delay or speaks wholly against a deb, one can still inform
> the other developers about a postponed or cancelled ITP. That would
> also prevent the weird-looking situation of multiple requests from
> different behaving developers to the same package's upstream.

In this case, we should have a more uptodate (read automated)
wnpp pages, so that everybody can check the ITP and send specific
information to locate the package (like home page, maybe licence,
and freshmeat appindex or sourceforge group id). Currently, we
never sure if we doesn't have miss an ITP, especially that some
doesn't include all the required informations.

> > So, maybe we should add this to the 6.1 section of the
> > developer-references? Aren't there any
> > Debian-Maintainer-Etiquette-HOWTO around?
> Yes, that would be a good thing indeed.
> -- 
> Robbe

-------------------------------*  *-------------------------
Fabien Niñoles                /  /          fabien@tzone.org
Chevalier Servant de Sa Dame /  /   C15D FE9E BB35 F596 127F
Veneur Gris par la Clef     /  /    BF7D 8F1F DFC9 BCE0 9436
Chaton pour Debian         /  / http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
--------------------------*  *------------------------------

Reply to: