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

Re: Proposal to help Debian release on time



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


Reply to: