Re: Sponsor Checklist

[Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:48:16 -0700
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > Considering some of the question marks that have come up regarding
> > sponsored packages, I thought I'd create a little checklist based on
> > some of the things that I've seen go wrong.
> > 
> > I thought I'd bounce it through you all before I sent it on to -devel.
> > 
> > http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist
> 
> Thanks, Don - that is very useful.
>  
> > Determine if the package actually belongs in Debian
> > 
> >      * Is upstream active (alive)?
> 
> Maybe it's just me (so I haven't put this into the Wiki yet) but I
> don't see a dead upstream as a blocker. I'd like to see that point
> qualified with regard to later sections on whether the proposed
> maintainer is judged capable of handling a package with a dead
> upstream. Yes, a dead upstream adds difficulties to package
> management but I have packages with a dead upstream including one
> where I have taken over upstream maintenance 8 years after the
> original upstream left it for dead. I have sponsored packages with a
> similar history. I have also looked at doing the same with certain
> packages with a dead upstream and left well alone. The state of the
> code is a better indicator than just the activity of upstream, IMHO.

Right; there are definetly cases where dead (or
indeterminate-alivedness) upstreams can still have packages which
would be useful for Debian and can be viably maintained.

I think it's really a case where the sponsor should be aware that the
upstream is dead and should make a decision whether they still want to
sponsor.

Maybe: 

 * Is upstream active (alive)? If not, is the maintainer capable of
   handling upstream problems? Are you?


Don Armstrong

-- 
Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster.
 -- Anthony Towns

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu