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

ITP packages tagged patch

Hi all,

As per my previous message to -devel, I sent out a batch of
"Outstanding ITP" messages, with hopes to clean up the WNPP area.

In the process, I came up with some ideas about how this could be
integrated with the sponsorship program.  The last time I sent these
emails, someone suggested to me that "ITP+patch" was interpretted as
"seeking a sponsor" (in the sense that a patch.gz exists which creates
./debian/ as well as any other necessary changes). 

I don't think that tags are commonly used on combination WNPP bugs,
but I think its a good idea.  Here are my interpretations for ITP

patch		"Seeking a sponsor"
wontfix		"Original ITPer decided not to upload and wishes to
		document the reason why"

upstream	"Waiting on upstream"; license, maybe, or bugfixes, or
		anything else

fixed-in-experimental	"Package uploaded to experimental"

And for RFP:

confirmed	Indicates an interest, by an independent party, for
		that package

I haven't come up with a good interpretation for "unreproducible"; but
"Pending", "moreinfo", and "help" mean the usual.

So, I recommend that these uses are documented and recommended.
Specificially, there should be a new "Seeking a sponsor page" (to
replace the old one at internatif.org).  And we should keep it
up-to-date.  I'm willing to do the work necessary to implement this,
if someone gives me access to the current implementation (or a copy

Also, as occurred to me in April [0], I recommend that the RFP list
has a kind of expiration associated with it, with an easy renewal
mechanism.  I just looked at the wnpp-alert program, and I'm thinking
of something like that (maybe in addition to the DWN message I talked

Also, this should be mentioned in documentation.  I don't think it is
(even though I'm told ITP+patch is supposedly already recognized, I
don't think its well known, or intuitive).  So, if you find somewhere
that this should be mentioned and isn't, then please tell people.  

Comments, please?



[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2004/04/msg00094.html

Reply to: