Re: Looking for new FTP assistants
On 09/07/07 at 14:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> writes:
> > Sam Hocevar wrote:
>
> >> The tasks
> >> ---------
>
> > [...]
>
> > what about override adjustments? I have packages where I've fixed
> > clearly wrong overrides and was answering many times the automatic
> > 'override disparity' mails without any answer for years.
>
> Seconded. Someone who was willing to clean up all the overrides (and
> maybe while they're at it work out a general policy for extra vs. optional
> and discuss it here and then implement it) would be awesome.
>
> There are always going to be some edge cases, but I can think of several
> straightforward guidelines:
>
> * Most *-dev packages should be extra.
> * All *-dbg packages should be extra.
> * Everything in oldlibs should be extra.
> * All transitional packages should be in oldlibs.
>
> etc. Oh, and deciding whether doc packages go in doc or in the same
> category as the software they're documenting and then enforcing that
> consistently would also be great.
>
> People really do use both package priorities and sections still for
> selecting packages in the package management tools, and it would be great
> to have them fixed.
Seconded. I tried once to install all "optional" packages at the same
time (which is supposed to work). But it failed miserably.
But couldn't all the override stuff be something that could be worked on
by people without being FTP assistants? Exporting the overrides list to
$RANDOM_VCS and allowing people to submit patches in an easy way could
be enough...
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: