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

Re: RFS: sanduhr (restoring removed package)

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:26:28 -0700
Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@kinias.org> wrote:

> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.93-2 of my package
> "sanduhr" (currently removed from unstable).

This just isn't good enough - not by a long way. Packages are not
removed from unstable without due cause so be OPEN about the cause -
this is open source, this is Debian - "we don't hide problems".

At the absolute minimum you *must* include the bug numbers that caused
the package to be removed from unstable in the first place AND specify
those in the list of bugs that would be closed because when a package
is reintroduced, the bugs that were closed by the removal become
relevant again! This package had two RC bugs before removal - what have
you done to ensure that these are fixed and that the package will not
introduce new ones?

Too many RFS emails are still blindly following the template without
any thought.

Sponsors are not a dumping ground for bad packages that have already
been removed once - if you want a sponsor to help you (and yes, being a
sponsor is entirely voluntary) you have to do some work. Sending an
RFS template with no more data than could have been included from a
10 line shell script is woeful.

If you would like me to sponsor this package you are going to have to
do a LOT more to make up for such a bad start. Frankly, I'm not sure
that the package deserves to be back in Debian so, please, justify your
request and try to persuade me. Bear in mind that your RFS has led to
you starting from a deeply negative position so your responses had
better be very good. I'm not going to do your work for you on this one,
work out what you should have done from the documentation that already


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgp4ySoJmlgtp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: