On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 16:43 +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > On the other hand, the sponsor is completely free to choose which > packages he wants to sponsor. And it is good that sponsors encourage > new packagers to have an eye for the little things too. Let's not shoot > Daniel for being just a bit more strict than other sponsors, and be > happy that he sponsors so many packages. And keep in mind that the > tone-of-voice in e-mails is always more harsh when read than when > written. :) I would recommend that any sponsor keeps that last thing in mind. Debian-mentors is supposed to be the "friendly" resource to get acquainted with Debian packaging. I often find the lists that Daniel posts to resemble commands "remove this.", "do not do that", "this is bogus", "that is useless" but lacking of background or guidance. If you take a look at some other sponsors, you will see that if they have some criticism on a package, they will often include *why* it is a problem, and/or how to solve it. This doesn't have to be long. Compare: * do not build a native package. with: * The package is Debian native, but the software is not Debian specific. The customary way to package software that has an upstream is to use the non-native packaging, which makes the package consist of a .orig.tar.gz from upstream and a .diff.gz for Debian. This clearly separates what modifications are done by Debian. There's a bit of text about this in the FAQ: http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html (example from this list) I think the latter is the form that suits the Debian Mentors list best. Of course there's no "rules", but I'd prefer it nonetheless. Thanks for considering. Thijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part