Re: italc and other packages

[Xavier Oswald <x.oswald@free.fr>]

On 22:15 Sun 25 Dec     , Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:06:29 +0100
> Xavier Oswald <x.oswald@free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > On 15:39 Sat 24 Dec     , Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:18:46 +0100
> > > Xavier Oswald <x.oswald@free.fr> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Debian Edu Developpers can maintain both Debian and Debian-Edu
> > > > applications.
> > > 
> > > Please clarify: What packages (besides SUN Java and Opera for
> > > obvious reasons) are Debian-Edu without being Debian?
> > 
> > The best way is to have all packages in Debian, but as I know we have
> > packages in skolelinux that aren't now in Debian. So we have Debian
> > and "Debian-Edu" maintainer.
> > In the future, I hope every package will be in Debian :)
> 
> I know that distinction is true for SUN Java and (used to be for) Opera.
> 
> I do not believe that is the general case. If so, then please clarify.

It's not in a general case.

I know that Steffen is maintaining stuff around skolelinux.
Maybe he can explain how he works and if he maintain packages that
aren't directly in Debian.

> > > > I think if a software will be used mainly with skolelinux the
> > > > field should be something like Debian-Edu team as italc :
> > > > Maintainer: Debian Edu Developers <debian-edu@lists.debian.org>
> > > 
> > > What makes sense to me is that the developers growing an expertise
> > > in "slicing" Debian into the sub-parts distributed as Skolelinux
> > > focus on the knowledge specific to that slicing.
> > > 
> > > I don't think it makes sense to bother *all* those same folks with C
> > > ++ transitions, Python policy changes, different version control
> > > systems, and and..., just because the software has an educational
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > Those interested in both infrastructural development of a CDD and
> > > specific packaging of an educational piece of software can simply
> > > join both teams - but when mixing then you make it more complex to
> > > join and help out.
> > 
> > Hmm, you are right, it's more complex to help but for big packages, we
> > need to have more than 1 or 2 person to help, package, upgrade...
> > 
> > > > But if it is a software which will be used both in Debian and
> > > > Debian-edu and moreover if it's a small package, only one person
> > > > should be in this field.
> > > 
> > > There's nothing wrong in teams with only a sinlge person. The
> > > difference between single-person teams and personal maintainance is
> > > the difficulty for person number two to join later on.
> > 
> > that's true. I know that some DD are working on to facilitate to
> > maintain packages with more than 1 person and moreover they are
> > working for enable non-DD to have a branch and could maintain
> > software because some people have asked to maintain packages and they
> > don't want to become DD. That's a real problem.
> > 
> > Now the best and so the easier way is to have a single-person to
> > maintain a package.
> 
> I think you are confusing things a bit. What you describe above is
> called co-maintained packages, and has been around for some time.
> 
> It seems the thing you mention being worked on is
> wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance which is an _extensions_ to
> what already exist today.

Oh, it's done right, it was a discussion I had with others DD and
Raphael 6 months ago.

Friendly,
-- 
Xavier Oswald