On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Hi, > > I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and (...) > Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled, > fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a > caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned. Not having a caring maintainer is not equal to not being autobuilt. Given the fact that for those non-free packages I maintain, some have been autobuilt at _some_ point > bass Don't touch this unless you are willing to work on it, thanks > lmbench Ditto. > satan Ditto. Now, I really don't remember seeing a mail on d-announce saying that autobuilders would not build non-free packages, but maybe I've missed it. Since I don't see in the Policy or Devel's reference [1] why/when this changed I don't intend to play the game and start begging autobuilders to do what they have previously done before. Now, this was discussed in -devel [2], with no consensus AFAIK. If you think that QA would do a better job at mantaining these packages (which I don't) please do explain yourself. I find it funny that some think that we should not waste inexpensive (autobuilders=machine) resources in non-free packages but we are willing to waste expensive (QA=people) resources in them. Regards Javi [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-porter-automation [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg00270.html And please don't tell me it shouldn't be documented because both the Policy and Reference talk about non-free.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature