On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:09:46AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> writes: > > > The 'core team' that is responsible for what is formally released is > > relatively small, *and* it has a relatively small amount of stuff to take > > care of. Combine the kernel and GNU libc teams, maybe throw in about half > > the current X Strike Force (biased towards the upper end). That's it - and > > that's all the software they actively maintain and promise to try to make > > work. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to have a core set of packages, rather than > maintainers? It wasn't a proposal for Debian, but a description of how the BSDs currently work (to correct an incorrect assumption about them). They have both core "packages" (really, a single core source tree, which includes the kernel sources, libc sources, and associated 'core' libraries, plus a few other things) and a "core team" which is directly responsible for that source tree. This is *roughly* (but by no means directly) analagous to the collection of "Essential: yes" packages Debian has (and the total number of folks involved in it is on a par with the list of folks who maintain those Essential packages, though probably slightly smaller). This has its advantages, and its drawbacks. It might work for Debian, it might not; certainly the recommendation made by the PTS about "Your package is of priority Standard or higher, you should consider getting some co-maintainers" isn't a bad idea. -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpsJRRlBxSsW.pgp
Description: PGP signature