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

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

Reply to: