Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, that's current practice, but nobody is stopping anyone to give a > little bit more care into QA packages...
The hardest problem, speaking as someone who wanted to do that and who still wants to do that as soon as I can find time, is that many of the packages that are QA-maintained are very difficult for the average developer to test. For various reasons, QA accumulates a lot of packages with obscure usages or obscure dependencies that are difficult to modify just because one can't be sure one hasn't broken something. For example: dcl: GNU Enterprise - Double Choco Latte eco5000: Orga Eco 5000 smartcard reader PCSC and CT-API driver gnusim8085: Graphical Intel 8085 simulator goldedplus: Offline mail reader for Fidonet and Usenet gsmartcard: A smart card reading, writing and managing program for Gnome gtkhx: A GTK+ version of Hx, a UNIX Hotline Client just to pick a few obvious ones off the first page of the orphaned package list that I'd have no idea how to test. > Also, I am wondering how much success such a 'common maintained packages > team' would have while there is a shortage of people caring for general > QA of orphaned packages or just on the archive at all. Yeah. It's not like there's a shortage of work now. I have 20 or 25 saved messages of people looking for sponsors, another 20 QA packages with bugs that I think I can fix, and a bunch of work for the Debian Perl group that I could do as soon as I find some free time. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
