Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Qua, 2005-12-21 às 14:34 +0000, Matthew Garrett escreveu:
> > I think I've said this before, but I have no objections to anyone
> > uploading any of my packages. I'd be even happier if anyone who did so
> > was willing to enter into some sort of reciprocal agreement.
> So do I, but I would be really happy if the uploader knows how I
> maintain the packages (I mean, using CVS, SVN or such) and cooperate
> using such tools.
This is legitimate.
> Maybe it would be interesting to have some information in the package
> saying how the package is managed and the preferrable way of doing an
> NMU (I actually, think that it's desirable to self-include in the
> Uploaders field, to acquire responsability also)...
This is definitely required. If I had time, I would have drafted such a
proposal for the Debian policy.
In the PTS, I'd like to be able to point people to the CVS/SVN/arch
repository used by the maintainers, however I can't because the
information is not stored, or is stored in a non-formal manner in
We may also need to be able to specify multiple repositories: for example,
if several branches are maintained in parallel (unstable/experimental), or
maybe for derived distributions like Ubuntu which may want to list there,
the URL of the "branch" that they're maintaining on top of the original
BTW, at the same time, it would be good to add more similar meta-data like
"VCS-Upstream-Repository" or "Upstream-Website" which are definitely
needed to make the PTS effective for QA workers which need to find out the
upstream website/community to seek help, to check for potential patches, etc.
Be my guest, and formalize such a proposal for debian-policy. :-)
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :