Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 08:46:22AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Saturday 13 October 2007 09:22, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> > Perfect example of a useless buggy package in debian. Anyone needing >> > dak uses the svn snapshot because the one in the archive is old and >> > deprecated. >> >> I think you are on a wrong track here. It might be an example of a poorly >> maintained package. But it would be very useful if anybody needing it >> could just install the latest and greatest package without needing to go >> to svn. > > It would be very interesting if a recent svn snapshot of dak would be > packaged _yes_. I merely say that the one in the archive is useless even > to the very few people using a dak setup. >
Popcon says 9 installs, 3 votes[1]. And according to the graph[2] seems like the top number of, reported, installations was 19 around January. And 8 votes in October last year. Packages such as dak and debian-policy should demonstrate the good maintenance of packages. But for example, debian-policy has FTBFS when building twice in a row[3] and according to the policy debian/rules:clean should undo any changes made, which is the reason why a package would FTBFS. Note that I'm not trying to raise a conversation on that specific topic, but about the quality of the "main" packages of Debian. [1] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=dak [2] http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=dak [3] http://bugs.debian.org/424212 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
