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

Re: old ITP's

Hi Mark,

[ late answer, I know... ]

Mark Howard wrote:
>   When I was looking through the RFP list a while back, I noticed many
> of them were for packages that were not maintained upstream - sometimes
> they were still at the planning stage after a number of years; sometimes
> they had been abandoned (many napster clones); in other cases, upstream
> just seemed to be very amateurish with little sign of development (e.g.
> not using cvs; no mailing lists; seem to be only one developer; no

I do not think all the points you are describing are _necessary_.
I second that these things are good but in my opinion there's no must.

I myself maintain a package (kover), which has not a mailing list and
CVS seems only to be updated if there's a new version released which
makes CVS quite senseless...

> documentation; latest 'news' on the site being from many months or years
> ago; poorly designed website).

How do you define poorly designed website? A website has _not_ to use
the newest crap to be functional and you can find there what you want
to. In that case the kover Homepage (http://lisas.de/kover) is an

Considering the 'news' aspect, you're right. That indicates that
upstream development is slept or it died...


  .''`.    Rene Engelhard              
 : :' :    ** Debian GNU/Linux Developer ** 
 `. `'     http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
   `-      rene@debian.org

Attachment: pgp0WfVaVev8g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: