Re: Looking for sponsorship: libfann, pyevolve (updates)
On 2014-03-06 10:48, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:46:45AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> On 2014-03-05 16:06, Andreas Tille wrote:
> So what exactly is your reason not to use
>
> git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/<packagename>.git
>
> as it is described in Debian Science policy?
>
> As I said you need *good* reasons to convince me to do the SoB
> sponsoring ... or just find somebody else who is not that picky about
> the location of your package. If you are wondering for my "good"
> reasons to insist on git.debian.org: The Blends tools are draining data
> from git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/ and the
> sponsoring is done to propagate the Blends idea which you are failing if
> you insist on using some external repository.
I'm not insisting on anything. I honestly don't care where the
repository is; on the contrary, something on d.o (where I do have other
packages) would mean I wouldn't have to maintain main own infrastructure.
As I said, my current focus is on changes beneficial to the users, hence
these RFSed revisions have the necessary packaging updates and the next
RFS (should I not get my DM flag back until then) will concern upstream
updates (with library transition and all). Those are large and
significant changesets. Only then will I look at the upstream
(cvs|svn)->git transition problem and, by extension, how my resulting
repo will look like, and where it will be. The latter is simply of no
value to the user and therefore not a priority to me at the moment.
I understand perfectly well that you have conditions to your
sponsorship, and I think they are quite reasonable. I just cannot
fulfill them at this time. But my RFS only went out two days ago, so
let's give it some time.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: