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! Andree 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