getting new "extra" package into sarge
I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
with priority extra into sarge at this point. The closely related
packages in question are vips and nip whose [1] ITP you can find here:
1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=188478
I would have packaged these earlier, but they depend upon libtiff, and
I didn't want to have something dependent upon libtiff in the limbo
between initial upload and package addition before I was sure the
libtiff4 thing was going to work. (I do realize that a new package
won't hold up the transition because it won't be in sarge.)
I have posted an [2] RFS to debian-mentors and an additional [3]
followup giving step-by-step instructions on how to do a quick trial
run of the software to help prospective sponsors evaluate it.
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/08/msg00038.html
3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/08/msg00057.html
Under ordinary conditions, I don't think there would be any question
about the "worthiness" of the packages. These are debian packages for
a very stable upstream package with fairly widespread use and
acceptance within its problem space (multi-stage image manipulation of
very large images). If attempting to put a new package, even at
priority extra, into sarge at this point is frowned upon, I'll just
wait on this and start pushing for a sponsor after the release. If
it's still sensible to try to get this in, I'll look a little harder
for a sponsor by contacting maintainers of similar packages, people
who have sponsored for me previously, or asking on debian-gtk-gnome
(since this is a GTK-based application).
Although I have some vested interest in seeing this package in sarge
(I'm planning on migrating my production environment to sarge, and
this package will likely be part of that environment), I could be
convinced to let this go if the timing is sufficiently bad. Thanks
for any input!
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: