[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: usefulness of ITPs (Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over)

On 28/03/2012 00:46, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jon Dowland wrote:
>> That was Joey's hypothetical, iirc, and I don't really agree with his
>> supposition that initial packaging is such quick work that the ITP
>> delay is significant.
> The typical package is fairly trivial to create. Often the rules file
> doesn't need modifications anymore, so unless a man page has to be
> written (which can be put off anyway), the control and copyright file
> are probably what takes the longest. 
> But, writing an ITP requires looking up most of the control file data,
> and requires researching the copyright too. For that matter, I'll bet
> that many developers do some basic compiling and running of the program
> before sending off the ITP -- why ITP something that you've never used?
> So the package can easily be half way complete before the ITP is sent.
> Running reportbug WNPP, filtering the existing reports to find a
> duplicate, and filling in basic data with cut-n-paste takes two or three
> minutes. Add the several minutes it takes to get a number back, add the
> interrupt needed to go check mail and get the bug, avoid getting dragged
> into some thread on debian-devel while doing it, and you've spent 10
> minutes on the ITP if you're lucky, and I would guess, more likely half
> an hour.
> The best way to become "hyper-efficient" is to avoid this kind of
> overhead, automate everything, and be prepared to fail quickly and
> iterate.
What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
debian/control and send the ITP? I can write that!

Jean-Christophe Dubacq

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: