Re: task & skills
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> [20001203 00:01]:
> After the discussion where James and Martin totally disagreed with
> me
I do NOT totally disagree with you. (I made that clear when you
approached me.)
> When I see that a package with missing build dependencies (except
> debhelper) that has in debian/copyright a "Copyright: not yet known"
> and 2 other bugs is enough to become a Debian maintainer
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss-0011/msg00103.html)
> I can't see any quality standards that are needed.
The NM you're talking about knew about the missing Copyright and also
knew that he would never upload such a package to woody. He had
already contacted the upstream maintainer to get more information
about the license before he sent the package to me.
The Build-Depends: I didn't count but I guess about 80 - 90% get it
wrong. I point them to the manual, tell them why it's necessary, tell
them about setting up a chroot environment (which, BTW, is not
documented well at all). And I have them fix it. There are packages
in Woody from experienced developers with wrong build dependencies.
When a build depdencency is broken, they will sooner or later get a
bug report, and then fix it (I remember filing a bug against one of
your packages, Adrian -- removing a unneeded build dependency is not a
nice thing either, especially when you build depend on the package you
want to build).
I know it's all in the manuals, but it's a lot to learn for NMs. Why
don't you write better documentation? e.g. a "check list before
uploading my package" which I proposed earlier in this thread (and to
which you didn't respond, Adrian, although I sent the message to you).
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
Reply to: