Re: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
- To: "Debian Developers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
- From: "Paul Wise" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:46:33 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0802292347330.14468@wr-linux02>
- References: <20080227145137.GD30494@millhouse.schmalenegger.com> <20080227185508.GF3614@sliepen.org> <20080229004741.GB13899@cajita.gateway.2wire.net> <1204250559.9659.824.camel@petrie> <email@example.com> <1204285285.9659.861.camel@petrie> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0802291317280.27977@wr-linux02> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0802292347330.14468@wr-linux02>
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Andreas Tille <email@example.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
> things that are not good enough for Debian?
Debian isn't being asked to do any such thing. I've been thinking
about doing this for a long time, one of the points in the proposal
I'd written was that DDs would be discouraged from participating since
they should be working on supporting the official archive.
> For the "not good enough _yet_" there is experimental.
experimental relies on DDs to upload, ftpmasters would probably reject
packages with no Maintainer field (or a blank one). experimental is
not the right place for this.