Would it not be sensible to add some other state to packages in wnpp, such that they need to get approved (i.e. have a sponsor come forward) before being accepted into Debian first? This would help avoid people placing an ITP and starting working on the package, only to find out for one reason or another they're not going to get a sponsor (as in the mail below). Could be called, for example, ATP 'Acceptable to Package', meaning that there is an opinion that the license is sufficiently Debian-compliant, and a DD will be willing to sponsor it. Millis On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 22:56, Rolandas Juodzbalis wrote: > Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > Well, choice is about having multiple packages offering distinct > > benefits. Choice is not about having two dozen half- to un-maintained > > packages failing to achieve the same goal. Being offered 20 packages > > isn't exactly a service to the user if he cannot be certain how long and > > how well the packages will be cared for. [1] > > > > I cannot see how politely asking prospective packagers to describe the > > value they think their particular package adds to the archive is > > inappropriate. > > There's >50 orphaned packages (where the ex-maintainer or someone else > > cared enough to do an upload assigning the package to qa) that have not > > been in woody, and probably quite a few ones that have been uploaded and > > are ill-maintained (why are 200 packages with RC bugs not in sarge?), so > > it's only reasonable to try to estimate the likelihood that a new > > package will share the same fate. Being the 10th daemon for a given > > service might not decrease that. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Thomas > > > Hi Thomas at all, > > I already found big (?) bug with Debian all versions probably, but not > sure how to fill bugreport correctly ;) I will try to describe it. Maybe > someone will help me clearing situation. > Once after reading DWN, I wanted to contribute to my favorite distro. I > packed tpop3d. And we have question of the day: "why? There are lots of > bugs to fix in existing packages". Ok, I said. And started to look at > wnpp lists. Ok, found one small package: wmnetmon. Just for beginners. > Right for my work, but I'm using different ;). As described in NM guide, > I asked for current maintainter to take over his maitenance. He welcomed > my idea. Then I fixed some bugs, added new translation (not so big) and > anounced it on debian-mentors list asking for sponsorship (old > maintainer has no time for it). Thanks for Andreas Metzler and Wesley J > Landaker for reviewing package and helping me to correct mistakes. But > what is interesting in all this - nobody answered with "yes, I will > sponsor you". Of course, it is only four days past my request, but who > can guarantee that answer will be? Now I see my bug. On next bugfix in > orphaned package I should ask - will be there sponsor. And I think every > beginner should ask this question before doing something. Because after > spending half of sunday learning new features it is pitty to find that > nobody needs your work. This is big bug from my point of view. > > Sorry for such long letter, > Rolandas >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part