Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response
Noel David Torres Taño <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I see a small problem with this, and it is the following: imagine that
> somebody packages a useful application. He has no special interest in
> Debian, but only in that application, and it is an application we
> consider worth enough to have in Debian.
I see that scenario as problematic in itself. I would much rather delay
the inclusion of that package until it gains a maintainer who
demonstrates interest in Debian as a whole, than have it maintained by
someone who “has no special interest in Debian”.
> That person creates the Debian package (as he creates packages for
> other distros) and puts it here. It is a good package of a good app,
> and he will have continuous interest in time for the package (that is,
> he will maintain the package in shape).
Do you have a concrete example of such a package that is especially
well-maintained by someone who “has no special interest in Debian”?
> Will we say him we will not upload his work just because he does not
> review other package he has no interest at all in?
My opinion: we have an excess of packages, and a dearth of maintainers
who have interest in improving Debian as a whole.
I would much rather address the latter by preferring maintainers who
demonstrate an interest in Debian as a whole, not just their pet
\ “By instructing students how to learn, unlearn, and relearn, a |
`\ powerful new dimension can be added to education.” —Alvin |
_o__) Toffler, _Future Shock_, 1970 |