Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > The list above is the list I am already caring about a lot. Sure, my response was more to the first sentence "there is no strict policy" when indeed there's some semi-normative recipe in the DebDevRef. I'm all for announcing intentions to this list! > You can help everyone by submitting the bug you discover when testing it, > and avoid uploading such broken packages. Sure, *if* you discover it. But I don't think it is reasonable to request that when someone ports a package depending on lots of libraries, that s/he should test every aspect of every recompiled library, especially if the facilities to test these are rather sparse. I'm content if the package itself sees basic testing. > (What you describe works for the current Linux ports, and it will work for > us when we have catched up and have more eye-balls on the ftp archive. > Currently, where I have to put a lot of energy to get and keep the ftp > archive at least a bit consistent and usable, it doesn't.) I'm talking about completely optional stuff like, say, gimp. Is it more work for you if we have a somewhat broken gimp package rather than none? > [...] and I actually doubt it will work for you either except in the > simplest of the cases. I trust you on that. I believe, though, that about 4500 simple cases exist. X is of course not one of these, partly due to the complexity of the software, partly due to the complexity of its maintainer's ego. I will now shut up until I have done some NMUs. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature