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

Re: Preparing a Proposal: 3 DD needed for every NEW package

Le Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:31:37AM +0100, Lenart Janos écrivait:
> needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his signature for it".
> Just to make it a little more complicated a minimum of 50 word long
> justification needed from all the 3 guys (e.g. two proponent DD and the
> future maintainer).
> Will it work? I hope it will do work, as sponsored packages are usually
> in a good manner, even with the rock of needing to wait for the sponsor.
> Will it make Debian better? Unfortunately, it won't. It will probably
> make it bloating less quick.
> Guys. Wake up! The *ONLY* thing that gets some brain-dead geek to use
> Debian is Debian's legendary quality. If Debian continue to go on this
> way it's quality will be legendary. Only legendary.

Well, the basic idea is not so stupid, but the implementation is not
really great.

I have something better to propose. But it requires a new (long asked)
feature : the ability to subscribe to a "package" (to get its bug logs,
to get mails sent to <package>@packages.debian.org [1]).

- for each ITP, we need at least 2 developers that will maintain the
  package, they both subscribe to the package, one is the official
  maintainer, the other is listed in the Uploaders: field.

- ftpmasters only accepts packages that fullfill this requirement (they
  check that there's someone listed in Uploaders)

In the long run, we'd really need summary mails to be sent to
<package>@packages.debian.org[1] to let people remember that they are
in charge of the packages and to point them where work is needed.


[1] <package> should really be <sourcepackage> ...

PS: Feel free to CC me since I read debian-devel only once a week.
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com
Naviguer sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Reply to: