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?=