Re: task & skills
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 06:33:31AM +0000, Frederico S. Mu?oz wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:08:42PM +0100, Lenart Janos wrote:
> 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.
Yes. Of course. There are things that are unable find in manuals (e.g.
because the manual is not up-to-date, or your problem is very rare).
It's OK to ask questions that has no available answare in
documentations, and other way it's unable to find out.
> 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.
You are right, _just_ running lintian is not enough. But running
lintian is better than just uploading the package w/o any check, like
some of the applicants (or NMs!) do.
> 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.
Then, the problem maybe the AM's judgement. I don't say I would do it
better, but I am not the only who think (and see) something is wrong.
More one thing. About my 'idea'. You haven't written anything
corresponding to that. With a that kind of check we would able to force
the applicants to read the manuals _before_ apply. It won't be an
enormous change, but it's better than nothing, and it may save some
time in the AM-steps (just because they won't have to answare trivial
questions). I think. What do you?
ps: If there is a need to a such database (tiny questions, answares), I
would create it.