Re: 'unsupported packages' (was Re: uugetty?)
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Steffen Mueller wrote:
> > Maybe there should be an 'unsupported' directory for packages which
> > have been released but don't have an active maintainer...or is this
> > what 'contrib' is for? Also, allow any package in 'unsupported' can be
> > adopted by anyone who takes the time to actively maintain it.
>
> That's okay so far but it doesn't guarantee bug maintainance. Assume all
> those folks going to install some of these packages and run into
> trouble....
Yep, that's why any 'unsupported' directory would have to be clearly marked
Something like:
**** WARNING ********* WARNING ********* WARNING ********** WARNING ****
* *
* These packages are unsupported. That means: *
* *
* USE AT YOUR OWN RISK (like the rest of Debian but even more so) *
* NO SUPPORT AVAILABLE. *
* YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN WITH THESE PACKAGES. *
* BUG REPORTS WILL PROBABLY BE IGNORED. *
* *
* These packages have no active maintainer. They may be old *
* versions. They may not work. They may do weird things. *
* *
* They may work perfectly. *
* *
************************** Volunteers Welcome **************************
* *
* If you care about a package in here, 'adopt' it and become *
* the official Debian maintainer. Read the Debian Developer's *
* Guidlines to find out what this entails. *
* *
**** WARNING ********* WARNING ********* WARNING ********** WARNING ****
ought to do it :-)
> Generally packaging "unsupportet" files would be okay as long as those
> packages are marked UNSUPPORTET or orpahned. If someone adopts it it can
> make its way into one of the common directories with a small comment
> "adopted 96xxxx by John Doe" + "Maintainer : "
Yep. That's what I meant.
If the 'Maintainer:' field in debian.control was 'UNSUPPORTED', then the
bug tracking system could then be modified to send a form letter back
for any bug report on an unsupported package saying "you might get some
help from other users but don't count on it"
Craig
Reply to: