Re: gtk-gnutella
Hi,
On Sunday, 04 Dec 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anand Kumria (wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au) [051124 04:40]:
> > <http://www.progsoc.org/~wildfire/debian/gtk-gnutella/gtk-gnutella-0.95to0.96b.diff>
> >
> > It's 18MiB of unified diff goodness.
> >
> > Far larger than 2.5MiB gtk-gnutella 0.96b the updated source release is.
> You don't really expect that we can accpet such massive changes in
> volatile? Besides, BTW, the changelog is *really* broken (and also the
> general packaging - I probably should as QA member do a package review
> soon ...).
> Basically, if you want to do a normal backport, speak with the
> backport.org-people. Perhaps it is possible to send out a mail to the
> volatile-announce-list that gtk-gnutella doesn't really work anymore and
> people should look for backports (and also name one or more locations),
> but there is no way to accept the package as it is currently in
> volatile.
What could be done IMHO is to backport the necessary changes of
gtk-gnutella that it can again connect to the networks. But just
compiling a newer version of it for sarge is not an option for volatile.
That's what backports.org is for.
We might accept gtk-gnutella for volatile-sloopy, but not in the current
state of the package.
BTW, if you, dear reader of debian-volatile@lists.debian.org, think our
decision is wrong, try to convince us. It's not only up to Andi and me
to decide what goes in and what not, but currently it seems it is only
Andi and me inspecting the packages. Sure we have the last word, as we
need to accept it on the ftp-server, but we only humans and might make
mistakes. Speak with us, only that gives us the possibility to get a
clue what our users whould like to have on volatile.
Greetings
Martin
Reply to: