Re: openmolar (dental practice management): ITP
[moving to Debian Med user list to get a more fitting audience]
Hi Dmitry,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:44:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> I had a look at "openmolar" and found it somewhat usable. Latest beta version
> was released just 3 months ago so I packaged it and created repository at
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/openmolar.git
:-)
You have probably seen my comment on your commit...
> I failed to re-use (i.e. unarchive/reopen) old ITP #564285 so perhaps a new
> ITP is to be filed.
I guess it does not really matter. For me "closing" this archived bug
in the changelog is fine. Finally the ITP is to make sure that people
are not doing a competing packaging effort and I do not assume that
currently somebody else is working on openmolar in parallel.
> Andreas, how would you like to proceed? Do you want "openmolar" in
> experimental or in unstable? Thanks.
If you regard it "usable" unstable is fine. You might add a warning in
the long description about "no guarantee that the package is doing
anything useful / expect a loss of all your data / blabla" or whatever.
I'd also add a verbose README.Debian to clarify the status of the
package.
I think the classification experimental / unstable is more from a Debian
point of view to get some technical (library dependency) stuff tested in
a sandbox. If users might simply miss the existance of openmolar because
it is hidden in experimental which is not in their sources.list it is
like "not packaged" which is not really in the interest of our users.
People using software declared as *beta* should know what they are doing
and we are just taking over the job of simplifying their work to install
the software ... and for sure we try to make it as good as possible -
but not better.
Thanks for working on this
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: