Re: Some news from the website :)
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, David Paleino wrote:
...
I'll work on that too.
Fine.
I'm working on this now I obviousely do not have to care about the python-apt
stuff. There is one thing I'm wondering about: How did you choose the
packages on the bug page?
Those are the packages where the maintainer is
debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org
I believe we'll should switch all the packages to follow this criteria (as many
other teams do -- see Debian-Xfce and Debian-Perl)
OK. I agree with you that this is a reasonable step. On the other hand it
has some drawbacks in the current situation:
1. Currently there are several medical packages out there that do not
fit this criterion - and IMHO it makes no sense to upload a new
package just to change the maintainer.
2. There might be other CDDs that will be not able to change the maintainer
this was. For instance think of Debian-Edu: They will not be able to
convince the maintainers of all packages to switch to this kind of
group maintainance. They include Openoffice.Orf, Firefox, etc.
3. It might be that a maintainer of a package that we regard as medical
interesting has the main focus on Debian-Science and would like to
group maintain this package in this scope - package could be interesting
for different groups.
So finally I see no way to guarantee that all packages that should be in our
focus to mark the way you are proposing.
They will be automatically generated, as long as there are bugs filed against
those meta-packages. Otherwise, I'll have to change the approach.
No - I do not mean bugs against meta package but bugs against all those
packages that are in the Dependency list of the meta packages - in contrast
to the tagging by the list as maintainer this would IMHO be a solid
approach to identify the packages of interest.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: