Re: DEB packaging request
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Sounds good. Of course, the WNPP system handles the "prevent redundancy"
> aspect on the Debian end of things (although not foolproof, as people can
> ITP things under different package names, miss an outstanding ITP, etc.)
> But staying informed about new things to package is a good thing. I think
> I'd like to participate for that reason.
To be honest, what we're doing is taking a lot from Debain. I really like
the way Debian handles things (orphaned packages, WNPP, etc), so I'm
trying to push to make our organization more modular, and less reliant on
certain key individuals (such as myself) who can be flaky (such as myself
;-)
Plus, another benefit of such a rel managament list is that we can help
others understand how Debian works, and why (for example) DEBs are not
added to our site for download (which is something that comes up a lot).
> Makes sense. If you're out shopping for new packages, I can see the benefit
> here. And I'm always shopping for new packages (often just relaying my
> thoughts to the list to see if someone else will pick up the package).
Yes, see we have some neat projects, but some of them (tuxmath is the
biggest example) somehow get lost in the shuffle and tend to never get the
support/hype they deserve.
(FYI, tuxmath is headed by Bill Kendrick, and is a math game that plays
like Missle Command. After Sept.11th, the project got hammered pretty
severely because of certain imagery we had in the game that we all became
very concerned about post 9/11... Now that's many months later, it seems
innocent again and I really want to see the project flourish)
> So the tuxmath person may or may not want to be on this list, and it doesn't
> make a big difference to you?
We would prefer it, but no, it's not mandatory.
One of the other reasons for this list is for packagers to support each
other. For example, if whomever is in charge of package X for project Y,
has something come up (dead grandmother, etc.) and knows that another
packager for X is on the list, they can send out a quick "Hey, I have an
emergency and can't package this time. Could someone else do it?"
So in cases like that, it helps, but it's not mandatory.
Especially in cases where the packager is also a developer. In those
cases, it's probably silly to be over on the rel list as well.
> > Also, we will be strictly enforcing giving the release management group
> > plenty of notice prior to a release. Right now, I'm leaning towards a 1-2
> > week minimum.
>
> Great.
Actually (and I may be being a bit more honest here than is prudent ;-)
what I usually do (when it's my project) is announce that I want to have
the release about a week earlier than I really plan to. I typically just
plan on things taking longer to package.
Now, here's the caveat, we need to train all of our project managers to
work this way. There are quite a few that just fire off the source
tar-ball and say "have packages ready by tomorrow". In those cases, I'm
going to be the bad-guy (well, perhaps the "stern-guy") and tell them they
need to give at least 1-2 weeks notice.
> Yes, it does seem that communication is lacking here.
Well, and it's hard because there are sooo many different educational
projects out there that could be included. What I really want to do is
make it so that some of them are at least a bit more unified (while I
don't like the analogy, some of our developers have said it's like KDE for
educational games) and available from a common place.
> Well, I can help provide some continuity to the Tux4kids + Debian Jr.
> relationship. I guess the biggest problem I face is that things can quickly
> fall out of date because there are just too many packages to keep track of.
> When I look at it that way, it certainly would be easier for me to be on one
> list covering several of your packages rather than several different
> single-package lists.
And right now, we really only have two or so projects that are in need.
So, for now at least, theres not much to do. However, we have several
things currently in motion, plus we have recently had a rather large
server donated to us with the intent of hosting more projects like ours
(the company that donated it wants us to make more games like tuxtype &
tuxmath). So, it seems we will be growing.
I just want to be prepared with better infrastructure so I (and other
managers) can delegate better (and I don't have to micromanage every
little detail).
> > Our intention with these groups (and, while this is the result of several
> > months of discussion, we're only now putting it into practice, so we're
> > yet to see how well it really works ;-) is to reduce the learning curve,
> > and let people interested be able to focus on what they're good at.
>
> I hope it works out.
Me too ;-)
> I'm not sure you made it out to be. I think it's just me thinking "Oh no,
> not another list. Do I really want/need to join this?" But your elaboration
> on the benefits is really quite compelling, so I think I'll enjoy being a
> part of the group. Participation as a liaison does mesh with my goals for
> the Debian Jr. project.
Great! That's wonderful.
> Yup. See you on the list. You can subscribe me as
> "Ben Armstrong"<synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> or point me at instructions
> for subscribing myself.
Okay, I'll forward this to the current Release Manager (Calvin Arndt), and
we'll get you on the list.
Be warned, we've recently been discussing a Win32 port issue on the list
(apparently the free installer we were using is mis-identified as having a
Trojan virus, meaning that all of our future Win32 installer binaries will
be mis-identified as well :-/ ) So you may come in the middle of that
discussion.
--
Sam Hart
University/Work addr. <hart@physics.arizona.edu>
Personal addr. <criswell@geekcomix.com>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-jr-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: