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

Re: ITP bugs

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:15:42 +0200
Pierre THIERRY <nowhere.man@levallois.eu.org> wrote:

> Scribit Neil Williams dies 02/10/2007 hora 09:57:
> > > ITP bugs are not required. 
> > ITP bugs are required by most sponsors. As DD's, you and I are free to
> > skip ITP bugs but maintainers needing sponsorship should file an ITP.
> Indeed there's very valuable information layed out in a very friendly
> way in the ITP, like language, license and homepage of the project being
> packaged. I can understand why sponsors may want to require them.

Actually, I require the same information (and then some more) in the
RFS email when sponsoring. I require the ITP for different reasons:

An ITP open for at least a week ensures that other DD's and interested
parties have a chance to check the proposed package name for conflicts,
add a comment about whether there are likely problems just from the
type of package (e.g. yet another image gallery website system) or the
likely dependencies (php4). 

This is because an ITP report always gets copied to debian-devel as a
special case of bug handling. More eyes means more problems are spotted
before the package gets anywhere near any users. An ITP also helps
avoid duplicated work - you should always check for an ITP before
starting work on any new package.

That is why an ITP should have been opened for at least a week before
I do the sponsoring.

File the ITP when you start working on a package - before you've even
run your first build. File an RFS only when you have done everything
you can to prepare an acceptable package and have uploaded it to
mentors. In the RFS, start with the info from the original ITP and then
start adding more information for the sponsor.

Those are my recommendations for ITP and RFS.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpy7gIYN2Anr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: