[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

See <http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/> for reference.

When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.  The package changelog
can and should still use "Closes: #<ITP bugnumber>", so that the bug is
closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of
the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP
group, and in that of the FTP maintainers.

If a package is rejected by the FTP admins, they should email the bug
number and explain why.  If by its very nature a package can't be
accepted into the project, perhaps the bug should retitled "UTP" [unable
to package] and reassigned to wnpp.


1) This better reflects the actual process by which packages get into
Debian, and who is responsible for a package at a given stage of its

2) This gives the FTP admins a place to put information relevant to the
process of accepting (or not) a new package into the archive.  For
instance, here's part of the output of ls -hlrt on auric's incoming

-rw-r--r--    1 philh    Debian       1.2k Jul  3 02:31 memoization_1.0-4_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 viral    Debian       1007 Jul  3 13:49 kernel-patch-folk_1.10-1_hppa.changes
-rw-rw-r--    1 troup    Debian       1.0k Jul  6 13:25 mnews_1.22PL5-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 troup    Debian       1000 Aug 29 16:50 sword-comm-mhcc_1.1-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 troup    Debian       1019 Aug 29 17:01 sword-dict-naves_1.1-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 was      Debian        988 Sep  1 22:21 csmash-demosong_1.0_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 chanop   Debian       1.2k Sep 15 02:59 libjpeg-mmx_0.1.3-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 chanop   Debian       1.3k Sep 15 03:03 libmpeg3_1.4-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 chanop   Debian       1.1k Sep 15 07:43 bcast_2000c-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 branden  Debian       1.5k Sep 18 09:43 xmailtool_3.1.2b-1.4_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 gibreel  Debian       1.9k Sep 19 12:43 j2se1.3-powerpc_1.3.0-1_powerpc.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 gibreel  Debian       2.1k Sep 20 13:28 j2se1.3-i386_1.3.1-1.1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--    1 marillat Debian       1.3k Sep 21 10:46 rte_0.3.1-1_i386.changes

Some of those packages have been there quite a while.  Some of them,
like the FOLK collection of kernel packages, and Broadcast 2000, are
quite interesting, but I'm not sure where to look for information about
why they haven't been accepted yet (other new packages have been in the
meantime).  After xmailtool sat in the incoming queue for several days,
I filed a bug against ftp.debian.org <http://bugs.debian.org/113300>.


xmailtool is one of those de facto unmaintained packages that hasn't
seen an upload since potato released.

I uploaded an NMU on September 18th that fixes a serious bug in the
package (it has a file overlap with xlibs, which might actually be a
grave bug, not just serious).

Please add xmailtool to the katie database.  madison knows about the
version in stable, if that's any help."

The bug was quickly closed by one of the FTP admins:

"xmailtool is a NEW package.  It will be processed as normal. You are
not going to harass us into special casing you by filing hysterical
bug reports."

So I replied:

"Please quote to me the part of the report that was hysterical, so I can
avoid using such language in the future."

The FTP admins' only further reply was to the BTS control bot:

"tags 113360 wontfix
severity 113360 wishlist

Bored now."

Clearly not a very productive exchange.  Apparently the package is never
to be accepted into Debian, and the FTP admins have not explained why.


I can't think of any.

Comments?  WNPP guys, what do you think?

G. Branden Robinson                |    I just wanted to see what it looked
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    like in a spotlight.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Jim Morrison
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgp4Nt57Nf9m7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: