Re: NEW handling ...
On Thursday 17 March 2005 01:19, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Collecting tidbits of
> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
> > that information public.
>
> A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
> package names, bugs closed, et al.
>
> Nothing more can be done by the average bored DD, since they cannot access
> these packages, hence not do most of the necessary checks.
Isn't there a mirror of NEW on merkel?
To demonstrate what I mean, I'll take a look at the oldest packages and
collect whatever tidbits I think are necessary to decide on them:
rte (3 years): discussion on debian-legal[1] ended without answer to James
Troup question about details:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/10/msg00090.html
Legal status: Package DFGS-free, possibly patent-encumbered, Need checking of
video MPEG layer-2 encodings status.
kernel-linux-experimental-* (1 year): Long discussion with Maintainer in the
ITP: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220401
Maintainer didn't answer on ITP-ping. May rot in peace.
kernel-patch-2.4-{blooper,pom} (1 year):
* Fixes for minor annoying kernel bugs
* Netfilter patch-o-matic patches to base level, IPSEC policy match
Both should be superceded by debian-kernel. Could be REJECTed.
And so on and so on. While everyone has to decide on a case-by-case basis how
to interpret this, it is a much better foundation to reason about the
packages stuck in NEW.
After collecting the "obvious" bits, the maintainers or available
sub-mailinglists can be pinged as it is already done with ITPs to get their
take of the matter.
For the much smaller list of packages where there still can't be any reason
found, the list can be postet to debian-devel for further perusal. But I
doubt that this list will be very long or contains packages that are very
old.
Regards, David
[1] easily found by searching for rte and debian-legal on google.
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: