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

Re: Improving our response to "duplicate" packages in Debian

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 09:24:25AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le jeudi 28 juin 2012 à 16:42 +0200, Guus Sliepen a écrit : 
> > - Don't immediately start complaining to the submitter of the ITP. Just let
> >   the submitter devote his/her energy to packaging.
> I don’t think it is worthwile to let people devote their energy to
> packaging pet applications that will disappear in 2 years time when they
> find another one.

You or I may not think that but clearly the one who is doing the packaging
thinks it is worthwile, and who know how many users there will be for the new
package. Nobody knows beforehand if the application will last only a year or
be there until the end of time. So we should not blame the new ITP for the
already packaged pet applications that have since disappeared.

> We really need to find better ways to involve new users in core teams,
> and that means removing from our collective consciousness the idea that
> you come in Debian to package your new favorite piece of software.

I agree we can use more members in core teams, but complaining to a maintainer
when he files an ITP is usually not a positive step in that direction. This
person will not suddenly think, "hey, you are right, I shouldn't package this
software which I thought was very useful, I should join the FTP masters

Already the Debian website mentions lots of things people can do to improve
Debian besides packaging, and I am sure they *are* being done. However, if
there are core teams that are in desparate need of help, they should make this
known somehow. Perhaps there should be a section in the Debian Project News
listing teams in need of help, or in general, non-packaging tasks that need to
be done. Adding (a link to) a list on http://www.debian.org/intro/help or
similar pages might help too.

Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: