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

Re: Requests to sponsor new library packages

Le jeudi 20 août 2009 à 09:01 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> I think part of the gap in understanding here may be that everyone is
> assuming that “library package” necessarily means a C-language library
> package. Does this qualitative “hard to do right” apply when the library
> package is implemented in, say, Perl?

It's just the same as far as I'm concerned. While my experience is very
limited, just finding out about the packaging and noticing all the
little details that may go wrong in *any* package, not just libraries:
software sections, whether it should be Arch: all or any or whatever
else, or getting the dependencies right and understanding *how* you get
to that result even when it's taken care of automatically by scripts
shows you well just how much time may be spent by a DD who sponsors a
package of any kind.

I think it's important to keep reasonable expectations: we (mostly) all
do this on free time, on a voluntary basis. I think it's expected that
one might not want to spend sleepless nights finding the errors in
someone else's work, especially with the amount of documentation
available. We all have other lives to worry about.

For my packages, I know I've made a lot of mistakes and just the
back-and-forth associated to that took a lot of my time (and surely my
mentor's too, thanks btw.), that's without counting timezone
differences. Sometimes you just got to be patient.

/ Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: