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 exists. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgplovl7u8mdl.pgp
Description: PGP signature