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

Re: If you can't describe what the package is, you probably should not Intend To Package it.

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: If you can't describe what the package is, you probably should not Intend To Package it."):
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:17:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> > Maybe adding a note stating 'this content is autogenerated and should
>> > be hand-reviewed', in all of the dh-make-*-enerated packages, would
>> > help?
>> Especially when paired with an autoreject, yes.
> Maybe as well as a stick, a carrot or at least some words that might
> suggest useful things to wrote:
>   [ delete as (in)applicable: This package is part of XXX system /
>   used by XXX / needed as a build-dependency of XXX ]

As well as that, one could suggest that people add a paragraph about why
they wish the software to be packaged (as a comment that will not appear
in the uploaded package) and/or something about themselves if they're
new to creating packages -- It seems to me that they're more likely to
get useful feedback that way.

Also I suspect that some of the people creating recent ITPs are unaware
that their efforts are going to be forwarded to debian-devel to be read
by thousands, and will also be searchable in the BTS forever with their
name on it (along with any comments provoked -- positive or negative).

Some sort of warning to that effect might make devoting a little more
effort seem worthwhile.

BTW in the case of the node-* packages, I think they're being generated
by 'npm2deb'.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: