Re: RM omins, om, vcf

[Ken Restivo <ken@restivo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 07:59:54PM +0100, tim hall wrote:
> Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
> >On Sunday 14 October 2007 11:32:28 tim hall wrote:
> >  
> >>I wrote:
> >>    
> >>>I think it would be a better idea to put out an RFP on ingen
> >>>      
> >>Judging by the complete lack of bug reports against om, I'm guessing the
> >>package fails to run on anyone's system.
> >>    
> >
> >AFAIK it runs fine on 32bit intel machines.
> >
> >  
> >>I think om should be Orphaned, 
> >>I know that might seem slightly odd, considering that it is a
> >>co-maintained package already, but this action may result in the most
> >>appropriate outcome.
> >>    
> >
> >Which is ? (Which outcome?)
> >  
> Am I being a bit obtuse? Sorry I'll try to clarify:
> 
> I am assuming from previous conversations that you want to stop 
> maintaining om.
> I am also assuming that Free would appreciate a co-maintainer if 
> om/ingen continues to be maintained by debian-multimedia or that it 
> would be worthwhile to find a DD who wants to take sole responsibility.
> 
> If om runs fine on 32bit intel machines (apart from mine) then it is 
> still potentially useful in its present form, however it will present 
> problems in future if it FTBFS on other architectures or generates any 
> RC bugs.
> 
> I am suggesting RFPing ingen and Orphaning om so as to put the kind of 
> entries in the WNPP list that might attract an interested DD. That is 
> the outcome I'd like I guess. I'm hoping it would be apparent that in 
> fact it is ingen that needs the work, with om being replaced with a 
> dummy package for upgrade purposes. It may be that there is a more 
> straightforward way of doing this.
> 
> The one major reservation to all this is that I'm guessing, due to om's 
> low popcon rating and lack of bug-reports, that I'm the only person who 
> actually cares about this application and that only because it might be 
> useful in theory. In which case I might as well build ingen from source 
> and forget about it.
> 
> I'm persevering with this thread because I suspect om/ingen may be worth 
> the effort. It does appear to have 30 actual users. I suspect that 
> several people have installed and forgotten about it because of the lack 
> of menu entry. I also suspect that most users may not be aware that an 
> om package exists for Debian. The lack of response from anyone else is 
> starting to confirm those suspicions.
> 
> I'd also be very grateful if anyone wants to challenge my assumptions, 
> suggestions and suspicions on this matter. :) Apologies if this is 
> gratuitously verbose.
> 
> I'm a) not a DD and b) not a programmer otherwise I'd simply package it 
> myself. I'm probably capable of learning how to do it, but I'm not sure 
> it would be best use of my skills. I could go on ... ;)
> 

Umm, you might want to ask the developer of Ingen if he even *wants* users. 

I don't think he's even made a release of it yet. It seems to be just a rather impressive personal hacking project right now, rather than anything that's actively seeking a user base or providing support for one.

- -ken
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHEqree8HF+6xeOIcRAs67AJ4tRytmyIPTXj1/DdQ5XFPBfA+mFACbB/gc
UnioauViJhdvMCyJJKP7+ZI=
=Vd57
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----