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

Re: Linux signpost?

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 12:11:37PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> While I agree that more time could be spent on updating the tasks, the
> tasks are not really unmaintained.  The focus is just what packages
> are installed during d-i installation, and non-existing packages is
> not really a problem that need to have priority over all the other
> stuff that need to be fixed in Debian Edu before Squeeze.

While I agree that non-existing packages are no problem the *reasons*
for this non-existence might vary.  If the reason is a misspelling or a
package renaming you will certainly miss something.  So if you have
browsed the list and are sure that those case do not exist - it is fine
for me.  (I personally prefer cleaning up such lists to make sure I
will not overlook something.)
> Some of the nonexisting packages have been added to the list to make
> sure we remember they exist and check them out some time in the future
> to figure out if they should be included in Debian or not.

This is perfectly supported by the prospective package approach[1] I was
advertising several times.  If you provide at minimum a 'Homepage' and
a 'Pkg-Description' field these packages will show up on the web page
instead of causing a warning in the logs.  Regarding documentation and
letting other people know this is IMHO the far better approach.
> I would be very happy if someone would spent time on reviewing these
> packages to see if the packages listed in tasks but missing in Debian
> should be uploaded to Debian.

... or would maintain the fields needed for prospective packages.  This
is a simple task for people who want to dive into Debian Edu and does
not require any technical skills.  I think I just volunteered to apply
patches to the tasks files in case somebody remains unsure - if not I'm
just doing it now.

Kind regards


[1] http://blends.alioth.debian.org/blends/ch-sentinel.en.html#s-packageslist 


Reply to: