+++ Neil Williams [2012-03-26 09:17 +0100]: > Therefore packaging takes no time at all, it is always fully complete > before the code itself is even worth evaluating as useful to Debian. > The packaging is part of my test harness.
You are only looking at this from the upstream's point of view. Most packaging is someone else's software. And getting it into a decently-package state can take a _long_ time. I've got one here I've been working on from time to time for over a year: (first waiting for upstream to provide a licence, then finding out how to package ocaml stuff, then waiting for some promised docs - which I eventually wrote myself after nothing happened for months, and now it's stalled because something changed in ocaml worlkd and it doesn't build). That's been about 18 months so far. It _will_ be uploaded very soon. (misery). I have about 6 other packages here which get attention from time to time and should eventually reach an uploadable state. Yes. I should file more ITP bugs and keep them updated, and mostly I don't bother and may find I wasted my or someone else's time as a result, but I'm just pointing out why your argument is wrong, due to taking a narrow, and unrepresentative, viewpoint. > > > The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP > > > for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost > > > certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it. > > > > Absolutely disagree. Hijacking the ITP and/or package name without > > saying a single word about that to the ITP bug thread is just plain > > rude. > > If an ITP remains open without comment for > more than a month, the chances that there will ever be an upload to > close it are close to zero. That may be true in an 'averages' sense, but there are old open ITPs with a lot of work behind them and uploads will eventually arise, if only because someone takes over that work to finish it off. > ITP bugs must not be allowed to block actual work. It's equivalent to > domain-squatting and just as distasteful. Yes, sometimes the claim of ownership they imply is too strong, but it's not domain-squatting, and nor is it distateful. That's a silly thing to say. I've found ITPs very useful to find other people who have worked on stuff, and then used or updated their work (OWFS is a good example, where I made updated packages and arm packages available for a year or two before it finally hit the archive). Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120330133917.gc15...@dream.aleph1.co.uk
