Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
>> Branden Robinson <email@example.com> 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
> 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
firstname.lastname@example.org | the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)