El mié, 19-08-2009 a las 20:07 +0200, Patrick Matthäi escribió: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Leinier Cruz Salfran schrieb: > > Hello > > > > I want to take this opportunity to add that the bugs need to be > > addressed, especially the wish list. There are people who send bugs to > > request to be added or taken into consideration certain properties and > > functionality in the packages and maintainers are ignoring. Another > > Examples? > Personaly on wishlist items (new upstream functionalitys) it is the job > of upstream to address them, the maintainer should forward it to them > and maybe upstream does not want it? > You're right in that part, it all depends from the point of view we look, now evaluate this: if the sender requests that maintainer of the package to take into consideration to add or modify any part of the package, or add something missing and that can be added? For example, if I create a program in Perl or Python, I pack and upload it and someone asks me to consider adding a file that may help, or someone requests a modification of the code? That is what I mentioned in my previous post. > > thing is the system of new packages (debian-mentors, > > mentors.debian.net) .. I think that there could be a team dedicated to > > addressing this important task, same as the team dedicated to the > > kernel, the core packages, translation, among other important packages. > > I think you do not know how much work it is to sponsor a packages, > especially if it is NEW or the maintainer does not have enough > experience yet and the whole sponsoring requests ends up in a 30 mails > conversation.. > I do not think you're right in that part. I do not deny that I lack experience, but I know that to create a package takes time and dedication and thus, to evaluate and see if the package meets the minimum requirements takes more time. For the same reason is that, as a suggestion, I explained to DD to assess the possibility of creating a team of DD that can be charged with this task that is as important as many other > > > > I believe that this significantly affects the quality of the > > distribution > > Debian has the biggest software repository of every distribution. > I do not think that it is a *such important* part to include new software. > The most important RFS reports are such which fixes bugs (especially RC > ones). > I agree with you in the part that is more important to address a package that updates or fixes a bug, but it is also important to address the new revenue package. An example of this, when I started using Debian one of the things that impressed me was the amount of programs, games, tools, and libraries that exist in the repository. Just ordered a 'apt-get' and was installed and almost ready to use. > For some weeks I take a look on the mentors mail archive and the > packages list for sponsors on mentors.debian.net - I wanted to sponsor > packages which are waiting since "ages" to get uploaded. > My result was, that most packages are more or less quickly uploaded, but > neither the sponsor and maintainer replied to the thread on the mailing > list / removed the package from mentors, which is bad. > I have for you a scenario: Suppose you're excited about Debian, you like Debian, you want to help to make Debian better and spend part of your time to package a program, game, tool or a library. When you finished, you test it with 'lintian', install, uninstall, then uploaded to the 'mentors.debian.net' and finally sent an RFS. Spend one week, two weeks, three weeks and it's time that you ask yourself: What is happening? Until the time comes to desist from a help and good day, after a very long time, you receive a message talking about a DD package, then what are you doing? And the time comes that you no longer want to help. A good day, after a very long time, you receive a message from a DD talking about your package, what you would do in that time? > What I want to say: > I think the current situation is not as dramatical as some people state > it here, please correct me if I have got a wrong view of it. > Not misinterpret me, please, my only goal is to assess how DD can improve the current situation of the incoming packages for the sake of those want to help not be disappointed. > - -- > /* > Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, > Patrick Matthäi > GNU/Linux Debian Developer > > E-Mail: pmatthaei@debian.org > patrick@linux-dev.org > > Comment: > Always if we think we are right, > we were maybe wrong. > */ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkqMP20ACgkQ2XA5inpabMdEIgCeLET/h/2n8CDkpgS6WTShKNBa > eeEAn2pvmlsMiyhI1/u+ug1FZtUEUjsC > =3XMu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente