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

Re: RFS: dbmail (updated package needs new sponsor)


thanks for replying.

On 10/03/2010 09:39 PM, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
You might have noticed the thread started by Asheesh (with [1] being my reply).

That thread prompted me to send out a ping.

Your RFS email is prime example of those messages usually failing to pass my
"filter". So what's wrong this RFS email:

- The package name "dbmail" isn't all too specific. Once I looked at the package
   page I noticed that I would indeed be interested in using such a software, but
   that I wouldn't have guessed from the package name alone. Well, in this case I
   must add that the short description "base package for the dbmail email
   solution" is not that useful either (saying that dbmail is dbmail...).

That description has been in use for years now. I didn't look at it this time with a critic's eye. I have updated it now to be more descriptive.

- This "(updated package)" mainly tells me "can be ignored, they already had a
   sponsor earlier on".

Mmm. Then what should a packager use if the previous sponsor has gone mia, and a new sponsor is sought? Maybe the new subject would draw the proper attention?

I can't say that I'll take a look at it rightaway, but I'll take care of it in
the next days. Meanwhile please contact the debian-l10n-english list to ask for
a review of your package descriptions (and please improve the short descriptions

I've subscribed to that list, and will send out a request for feedback.

- I guess this is email *server* software, but this isn't clear), add a Homepage
field to your package (doesn't seem to be there, at least there is no link on
packages.debian.org/sid/dbmail), make sure it is lintian clean, etc. Although
reply-to is set to the list, feel free to contact me in personal mail.

I've updated the control file to include more recommended fields, among them the Homepage field.

And yes, of course it's lintian clean. But perhaps you've started filtering out the boilerplate. I've learned quite some time ago already not to bother sponsors if the package isn't lintian clean for the latest standards-version on an fully up-to-date sid system.

Again, thanks for your feedback so far.

  Paul Stevens                                      paul at nfg.nl
  NET FACILITIES GROUP                     GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
  The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl

Reply to: