Re: NEW handling ...
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
>
> Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they
> are not allowed into unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that everyone who
> is interested in these packages can quickly see where the problems are. If
> there is any interest in contents of NEW this list would be very handy to get
> a quick overview of the problems plaguing NEW packages.
I can even tell you now all the easy ones: all libraries which are policy
mandated to change their source name in case of soname change. The
kernel-source and various kernel-patch/image/whatever package or other
packages which need to have the version number embedded in the package name.
Source package which gain or loose a couple of binary packages in a reasonable
and easy-to-autocheck way.
> Having a website separating the hard cases from the easy ones is the first
> step needed to get a discussion about the rest going.
no, first step is getting a guarantee that the above will be useful and
accepted, or at least considered by the ftp-masters, or it is just work
that will be thrown away, and i have better things to do than that.
> And "discussion" in this case doesn't mean posting long rants from the
> uploaders on d-devel how unfairly the cabal has ignored his package since he
> uploaded it five years ago to NEW and never cared afterwards.
I on various case posted to ftp-masters about some of my packages in NEW,
which where important to get processed for whatever reason. I never got a
single reply on any of those.
But let's hope that the new blood and organisation of the ftp-master's team
will help get this situation to manageable proportions, as new blood helped in
the NM case, and others too.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: