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

Re: AM report for Andree Leidenfrost

Hi Marc,

I thought after three months of inactivity it is appropriate that I
enquire about the progress of my application.

The status page says that the last action happened on 2005-09-14 and
that the following is still outstanding:

* DAM to evaluate application
* DAM creates new account or rejects application

Interestingly enough, when looking at the status pages for my fellow
applicants at the same stage as I, I notice that almost all of them have
the last action date also on 2005-09-14 or shortly after in September.

I am aware that we are all volunteers and most of us have a life beyond
Debian (certainly true for me ;-) ) but I still feel that three months
is a long time, especially as I am in plentiful company of other
applicants having waited for three months for DAM approval (or rejection
for that matter).

You write in another posting to debian-newmaint@lists.debian.org
discussing Thomas Hood's withdrawal in response to Geert Stappers:

>> Please prevent further damage.
> How?

One answer might be to speed up DAM approval...

Best regards & happy christmas!

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:03 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Hi, 
> I'm a member of the New Maintainer Front Desk and have read your report
> and approved it. There are some minor issues I want to point out,
> nothing important, but you should be aware of those.
> [...Philosophy part, the different sections of the Debian archive...]
> > A further section is 'non-us' which contains software that is DSFG-free
> > but can not be freely distributed from within the US to the rest of the
> > world.
> >
> > Finally there is 'non-us/non-free' which contains non-DFSG-free software
> > that in addition must not be distributed from within the US to the rest
> > of the world.
> Please note that non-us is dead now (and wasn't released with
> sarge). This is possible because Debian has an agreement with the US
> government to avoid the export problems of crytographic software, so
> that we're now able to distribute things like gnupg and openssl in
> main.
> [... Skills part ...]
> >> * How do you manage new upstream releases?
> [...]
> Your answer was OK, but I'd like to point out that there is a very fine
> checklost for this purpose, which makes it easier to detect problems in
> new uploads before actually putting the software in the archive:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/12/msg00310.html
> >> * Dpkg does not support versioned provides.
> >>   Explain what that means, and list common workarounds.
> [...]
> > There is no workaround for this in regards to the actual virtual
> > package. However, one can specify the actual packages (with version
> > information) before the virtual package as an alternative. This means
> > that the dependency can either be satisfied with the actual package with
> > the given version or by any other package in the pool defined by the
> > virtual package excluding the one where the actual package with version
> > information has been specified.
> That's not true, i fear. dpkg doesn't behave as you said - all packages
> providing the package are taken into consideration, which means that
> Depends: foo (>= 2) | foobar-provided-by-foo is satisfied by all
> versions of foo.
> The most common workaround is to put a version into the name of the
> virtual package name, ie perl-api-5.8.0 or openoffice.org-l10n-1.1.4.
> The downside of this approach is that you can't use normal operators
> like >= or >>, only exact dependencies are possible.
> Marc
Andree Leidenfrost
Sydney - Australia

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: