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

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

>> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

 > As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an
 > uploaded package with an ITP bug against it is the "final stage" in
 > the realization of the new package.  We don't have fully fledged new
 > developers until their accounts are created; we don't have fully
 > fledged new packages until dinstall/katie can pull them into the
 > archive.
 > Also, I don't think ftp.debian.org will be overloaded with open bugs;
 > getting new packages that have been ITP'ed into the archive is just
 > as important a function as removing packages that have been orphaned,
 > and we file bugs for that.

 I can understand your argument for reassigning the bugs and in
 principle I agree with it.  My only objection is that people would have
 to check http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org instaed of
 http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp or http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp to find
 out about uploaded packages.  Making www.d.o/devel/wnpp fetch the
 relevent ftp.d.o bugs would be trivial.

 > Furthermore, as I said, this gives a place for people to post reasons
 > why a package may not be acceptable for inclusion into the archive.

 That's something that I'd like to see.  There's a WNPP page listing
 software that can't be packaged, but some stuff there lacks a reason.
 Links to archived debian-legal or -devel mails would be enough, but,
 should the need exist, archived bugs closed by ftp-master would be a
 nice thing to have, too.

Marcelo             | Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change
mmagallo@debian.org | the world.  It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
                    |         -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

Reply to: