On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:46:34PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:37:00 +0100 > Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> wrote: > > > The first thing to do is identifying where the problems are. Somebody > > juse told me to on an IRC channel that Debian should decrease the > > number of packages. 20 Ftp-servers aren't needed. However, as long as > > it's causing no problems it doesn't matter either. If there are > > RC-bugs in ftp servers will just be removed and debian ships with 15 > > ftp-servers. > package number is no problem, what's blocking is base, not extra I wanted to make that exactly clear. :) The problem is that the debian developers know this, some other people also know this, but most other people just think that the thousands of package are causing the problems. > > I already talked about an idea in an previous mail in this > > thread. Giving the base packages multiple maintainers, i.e. having 2 > > or 3 people in the Maintainer: field. The PTS already helps for > > this. I think it does make sense (and probably also was the meaning of > > the PTS and somebody is already working on this :-) to use it for > > other things now sent to the maintainer. > http://base.debian.net, yes, more maintainers will help but who taught > us that only maintainers can fix bugs on their packages? I didn't learn > that =P... and I am not telling NMU'ing without asking for it (unless > the maintainer is showing no activity and the package needs to be fixed > quickly) is a good thing, but sending patches do not hurt Yeah, base.debian.net is certainly nice but I think having all the bug reports of the packages you are interested in your mailbox as soon as they are filed is also a nice thing. This would help the people who aren't the maintainer. They could react much sooner with a fix, a merge with another report or say that are busy investigated the bug but it's not a very easy bug. It's the best thing to avoid NMU's, but sometimes it's needed. Having multiple maintainers would help, the upload of the second maintainer would be just a normal maintainer upload. Of course you need good cooperation between maintainers for this and good rules, but that's just the implementation of the idea. > > We could also implement the @packages.debian.org address as a > > mailinglist about the package. Now the general discussion about a > > packages happens on the BTS I think. This can also help fixing, for > sure, good idea, as I said before there's place for improvement > but as we both said this should be postponed to woody+1 Yes, we should stop wasting the time of the people subscribed to this list. We could move the discussion somewhere else, however. We might have to create a new list for it, looking at the current mailinglists it's at least partially offtopic on the other lists. Of course the chance is high that I overlook some list with this purpose. > you have nice ideas, repost them when woody is out ;) Yes, expect some proposals from me after the woody release. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpZuo8VdYa2Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature