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
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