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

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

I would go even 1 step further and seek from a perspective maintainer,
especially a non-DD/DM, at least some assurance that it is not a
fire-and-forget project for him (e.g. that he is using it extensively
and planing to do so for the next X years) and that he is willing
to put effort in proper maintenance of the package.  ITP -> 1 upload ->
X NMUs -> O is not that uncommon.  IMHO if there is a strong personal
motivation (i.e. active user) to get a package packaged, it might
provide additional weight toward "accepting" the package to be part of
Debian even if comparable alternatives exist.

I wonder if we shouldn't seek extending an 

/usr/share/pyshared/reportbug/debbugs.py:521:itp_template = textwrap.dedent(u"""\

with some advocation/motivation fields to make our discussion (upon
reaching the consensus if such could be reached) any fruitful ?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > It's part of the job of a (prospective) package maintainer to advocate
> > > for the package. 

> > what???

> I don't see anything unreasonable about being able to articulate the
> reasons why a package should be part of Debian.  I don't mean having
> to suffer a drawn out argument, but just being able to give the
> reasons why it's important for the software to be in Debian, what
> it does, and why it's sufficiently different from what we already
> have.

Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Postdoctoral Fellow,   Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834                       Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW:   http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik        

Reply to: