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

Re: task & skills

On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:08:42PM +0100, Lenart Janos wrote:

Ok, I'm answering just to state my views on the prolly most common pitfalls where a nm canditate like me can fall, and to write about this whole thread (just a general view):

> Hello!
> [ Well, I don't want to quote from Gergo's or Kumira's mail, I really 
> hope that everyone read *and* remember them. ]
> I don't agree with Kumira's mail.
> I think our goal is to create a good, trustable OS, that one includes 
> as much valuable program as much we can debianize. Currently Debian is  
> stands for these. Debian is on the top because it's organised very 
> well, it has high standards, DSC and others. Quality must be much 
> more important than quanity. Am I right?!

Yes, you're right, but even that really depends... having a top-notch 1,5 year old without recent sotware will not be very attractive even if it is extremely stable; on the other hand having, say, an experimental release of a compiler packaged (just a wild idea that came to mind) and given as default and having a lot of packages that have wrong depends, conflicts, etc (the kind of things that makes dpkg/dselect/apt crazy) is also very bad... in a dream world Debian should have both; in the real world Debian should be the one *close* to having both. 

> Our philosophy is 'help the applicants'. Approving them anyway (in 
> the hope they won't screw up the user's system) is not good for anyone
> Helping the applicants takes lot's of time from the applicants who can 
> read those manuals before submitting their apply query. I don't think 
> the NM process should be a 'school', and I don't know why AMs have to 
> spend time for applicants who don't read manuals, just ask. They should 
> be rejected after one or two questions. For example, that's trivial 
> that some of them can't even use gpg, don't know about lintian, etc. 
> Everyhing is written down clearly.

Ummm.... not so clearly actually (well, it becomes clearer after a while)... e.g. the first doc a nm reads is the newmaint manual; well, I red it, and since it concernes the DH_COMPAT=1 level several things are quite different (say, /tmp file doesn't exist, some dedhelper things are diff, etc); this is an example... the documentation is good and extensive (between manuals and man pages), but one must understand that making a deb is not as simple as running dh_make... only by working, making errors, reading, correcting can one begin to produce good packages; I've red 4 manuals and the things I remember more clearly were the ones were I made a mistake.

> I have an idea: The applicant should must fill a form before apply. 
> This form would contain questions like:
> "  What is lintian?
>     A) LINux Teachers International AssociatioN
>     B) lintian is Debian's very old document
>     C) lintian is package checker"
> and, if he can answare 5/5 questions only then he can apply. Of course, 
> there would be only questions that can be checked by a script. With 
> this we can avoid web-surfers wasting AMs time.
> One other thing:
> BTS. Yes, BTS is exists, but that is for the bugs we don't know before
> upload (it should be for them!). Applicants who can't run lintian
> should be rejected without further questions or discussions.

Well, I run lintian and my package is lintian-free... is it good enough? I don't know, because there are several things that lintian doesn't (and can't check).. I understand you're point of view and I agree with it, t&s can't be reduced to sending a package totally made by the scripts (no copyright, Debian.README empty, etc) - well, it can, but then it could just as well be abolished. 

In the long run I believe that applicants should be admited after producing an error-free package, even if that requires mails between the AM and the NM explaining why. Still, the fact remains: there isn't a standard checklist for t&s, and that leaves to the AM the judgement, always personal, of the ability of the nm.

Just my 2 cents,

Frederico S. Muñoz		GNU	http://www.gnu.org
fsmunoz@sdf.lonestar.org	Debian	http://www.debian.org

http://sdf.lonestar.org - SDF Public Access Unix Systems

Attachment: pgphiwwrhFJq3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: