Lars Wirzenius wrote: > su, 2005-03-06 kello 19:28 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti: > > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never. > > > > Why not? As wishlist bugs with patch this seems sensible to me. > > Denial of service attacks on the bug tracking system, on mailing lists, > mail servers, and maintainers is unappreciated. 6229 bug reports would > result in all sorts of unnecessary and unwanted load on all sorts of > systems and people.
Since preparation of the accompanying patches would take some time, it is unlikely to cause "denial of service" or "disruption". [snip] > > If upstream doesn't publish tarballs, e.g. In this case there won't be > > a meaningful patch for a watchfile. In any case it's up to the > > maintainer to decide about its inclusion. I believe most of them will > > accept such a patch. > > Having the watch information in the package means the information > becomes stale: when the package is part of a Debian release the watch > information won't get updated when the upstream web site moves, or the > download URL changes, or whatever. Yes, it adds some (small) maintenance burden. > Having a centralized database (say, > part of package.debian.org) allows that information to be updated > centrally, continuously, and also without disturbing a thousand > developers with it. Do you really expect such a centralized database would be updated more consistently? By whom? Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
