Hi, * Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> [2007-07-01 20:29]: > I'd like to ask if the template could advise/require that certain extra > fields are always specified? > > 1. An ITP usually includes a "Language: C/C++/Python/Perl etc." line, so > for requests for sponsors, it would be good to carry this over so that > packages that already exist in the archive also carry this information > in the RFS. It would help me enormously to be able to scan the RFS and > disregard all python or ruby packages and concentrate on C/C++ or Perl > without having to research each one via various web pages. Is this really necessary as the information should be present in the ITP? > 2. I frequently find that the short description of RFS emails is > insufficient and I would value the opportunity to scan RFS emails that > include the long description. Descriptions are commonly tweaked during > the process of sponsorship as it is rare that a new maintainer makes a > genuinely understandable short and long description on their first > attempt and existing packages can also suffer from poor descriptions. ACK and iirc it was common practice to include the long description in RFS requests back in the days before mentors.d.n :) > 3. The URL field is commonly just the URL for the mentors.debian.net > site (which itself is often little more than the template) when it > would be useful to either recommend the upstream homepage or include > that separately - naturally, if the long description is included, a lot > of packages will include this anyway. (Those that do not include a > Homepage link in the long description should expect to be asked to add > one.) As the upstream homepage should be also in the ITP for my taste the URL is just obsolete if a dget URL is included. > 4. Some kind of statement in the template that a bare template with > minimal information is usually insufficient. > > Those who may want to ask me to sponsor their packages, please note - > if you include this information in the very first RFS email to this > list, you have a much higher chance of attracting my interest. In most > cases, a bare template RFS will simply be ignored, regardless of the > merits of that particular package. ACK. I want to come up with an additional wish. 5. If the RFS is for a package update, please include a debdiff between the versions. Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - nion@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. http://people.debian.org/~nion/sponsoring-checklist.html
Attachment:
pgpUvYdauxuaP.pgp
Description: PGP signature