[Why to cc on policy? Cut] On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:32:30AM +0100, Bluefuture wrote: > >If people don't care as much about this as you think they should, > >perhaps it would be a good idea to try explaining why they *should* > >care, instead of just lamenting their lack of a telepathic > >understanding of your intentions? > > This is not true. Had u tried to do a search about dehs/watch on > debian-devel about 2004/2005? I didn't. Just change the content of this mail into one of the pages of your site, and you're set. > I'm not a debian developer, so i could not post on dda mailing list. I > had opened many thread over this months on debian-qa debian-devel about > dehs issues. The only reply are: > > 1) Dehs is useless. > 2) Submitting 6229 wishlist bug is not possible/is not the solution > (without proposing alternatives method) > > I had try to randomly submit wishlist bugs for 6 packages to bts with > the tag "patch" pointing to the dehs site or attaching the watch file to > the bug. > Almost all of this bug was closed and the watch file was check (in some > cases fixed) and inserted in the package on the next upload. So, you got the way to go. Please go ahead and submit those 6229 bugs. Providing a patch *is* an alternative method. We did the same sort of wishlish bug mass filling with the transition from raw debconf to po-debconf. We had less packages to bug, though. It represents an insane amount of work, but it's the way to go, I guess. What's useless is to fill the bug without the patches, but if you write the watch file for the people, nobody should complain. Good luck, Mt.
Description: Digital signature