Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:59, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Maintaining a good relationship with upstream is a sizable chunk of
> > doing a good job maintaining a package. Without such a relationship, you
> > cannot --
> >
> > -- pass bugs and feature request upstream with any certainty that they
> > will be heeded
> > -- be sure that upstream is passing any misdirected (sent directly to
> > upstream and debian specific) bug reports from Debian users back down
> > to you
> > -- find out in advance about any plans that you need to be prepared for
> > -- make sure that upstream is happy with your work, and that you're
> > not messing up anything non-obvious in the packaging
>
> My experience is that even with the best possible relationship with upstream
> the last three often don't happen.
Unless they're open enough, and you do enough work on the software to
actually sort-of-qualify as a minor upstream developer yourself. I have
managed to do this to both Cyrus and fetchmail (while I was maintaining it).
I didn't even try with my other packages, as they don't seem to need that
much attention right now.
This is not always possible, though. But it *can* be aimed for, as long as
you're going to be able to handle the amount of work it generates.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: