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

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)



Hi Praveen,

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:16:37AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Hi Praveen,
> 
> I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort.
> 
> Today we have #850399 which plumbs new depths in that it has had both
> long and short descriptions trimmed from the body of the message.
> 
> Please would you take responsibility for your packaging team by
> instructing them that it is simply unacceptable to have these packages
> with such useless descriptions.
> 
> The fact that they all seem to be trimming off the FIX_ME that npm2deb
> includes for them, and are thus also removing the explanation of what
> Node.js is, seems like vandalism to me.  Did you tell them to do that,
> or are they learning that from one another?
> 
> TBH I find this whole approach rather worrying.
> 
>   Are you paying these people for their efforts?
> 
>   Are we supposed to expect them to remain interested in these packages
>   when the money dries up?
> 
>   If not, what is the plan for providing maintenance for these packages
>   for the time that they are going to be in stable?
> 
> Cheers, Phil.
> 
> P.S. While you're at it, I would suggest that you encourage your
> packaging team to contact the upstreams in order to discover whether
> they are happy for their current release to be preserved in Debian
> stable -- I can imagine that some of them might be unhappy with the
> prospect of having the latest release packaged, if there are bug fixes
> in the HEAD that they don't want bug reports about for the next 5 years.
> They could then push out a release quickly and you could package that
> instead.

fully seconded, after reading #850399 (no description at all) and #850398
and #850397 just now (and many similar useless descriptions before), I'm
really curious for your answers to Philip's question above.

   Are you paying these people for their efforts?
 
   Are we supposed to expect them to remain interested in these packages
   when the money dries up?
 
   If not, what is the plan for providing maintenance for these packages
   for the time that they are going to be in stable?

Please elaborate.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: