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

Re: Time of a package to be processed by FTP-masters

Hi again,

Thanks all for your informative and quick replies.  You've covered all bases 
so I don't have any questions left, just one comment:

On Wednesday 27 October 2010 16:04:19 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Although a modest help, you may try to review some packages by yourself
> when a public copy is available, for instance on mendors.d.n or a VCS.
> The maintainers will probalby have enough time to upload a corrected
> update (this does not move the package back in the queue), hence saving
> some time from the people who will do the final inspection, and
> shortening the waiting time for your own package.
> On the following wiki page, here is a workflow that I have proposed some
> time ago. The goal is to trigger an chain reaction of package reviews:
> http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
> Have a nice day,

I've been hanging around in this list for a while, I think that I only 
reviewed a package once (and replied to one question from your about the 
correct way to test man pages :) ).  But most of the time it's because the 
mails posted are RFS, I don't have powers to upload them, and the developer 
uploading them possess much more knowledge than me about packaging 
questions, specially the tricky ones.

I'm trying to help Debian in general by adopting packages that are in my 
field of interest and are effectively abandoned by their maintainers -- so I 
update the upstream code (sometimes the package in debian is more than 3 
years old), talk with upstream to solve issues and incorporate patches, 
quell lintian complaints, put new package formats and things like missing 
watch files, close a few bug reports, etc.  And then I poke Ubuntu folks to 
update from Debian.

So I've never added new packages to the repository despite what my initial 
mail could suggest, I'm in fact adopting packages long abandoned, but which 
need to enter the new queue for a variety of reasons (e.g. the package being 
named according to a SONAME version).

The point being: adopting all the packages that I [co]maintain is already a 
quite comprehensive, careful and tiresome revision ;)

The copyright peer-review sounds like an useful thing to do, though -- I'll 
look into it when I have some time available.

Cheers, and thanks again!
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Reply to: