Anyhow finally we can say that dead upstream requests are out of interests/needs or even not in a need or require my work on packaging it and it's better to search for these alternative packages/Live-requests for a required work.
On 12/31/06, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:23:26 +0200 "Eng. Mina Ramses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Even then, there is no guarantee that jing will be accepted into Debian > >- it is whether you (or the maintainer) can generate sufficient > >interest in the package on this list or you or the maintainer apply to > >become a DD yourself and go through that process (currently at least a > >year). Sponsorship depends on catching the attention of an interested > >sponsor - there certainly does not appear to have been sufficient > >interest so far. You have to convince a DD that there is a role for > >jing in Debian. > > Can't recognize the need to become a DD in a relation with generating > interest for such a package unless that the DD is the controller of > accepting or to be interested in accepting such a package. If you or the maintainer are going to apply to be a DD, you would assume control of this package yourself, yes. If not, you need to catch the interest of an existing DD who can act as sponsor. The sponsor is likely to want evidence of how this package improves on existing alternatives and some kind of assurance that the upstream work will be done by the maintainer. > >There are alternative packages already available - the > >request for sponsorship should make it clear why this package is > >superior to what already exists. This can be difficult with a package > >that is dead upstream. > > At the time there're alternative packages already available and maybe > superior, and that the package already is dead upstream, why there exist > such packages requests The package request (the RFP bug) exists because someone wanted it some time ago but that bug is now closed so they appear to have lost interest. The bug report itself hangs around because other people may come along later and be willing to take on the dead upstream AND package the software - they would presumably have ideas on how the software could be improved to make it a worthwhile addition to the archive. There's always room for improvement. > by the system and no way to control the packaging > purposes that may have been full filed by these alternatives which leads to > remove crossed in purpose requests . The fact that the RFP is closed should be sufficient indicator that there is some form of alternative or that the need for the package was not as great as originally thought - or possibly that the package simply doesn't work. There's no need to remove the RFP - it is up to prospective maintainers to find out what is going on with a particular package before looking to resurrect it. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
-- |Mina r. Fahmy| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GNU/Linux registered user #312544 * Debian 3.1 Sarge * PC http://mina-fahmy.blogspot.com Linux Network Consultant member ========================================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDjwHQS45JQJZP7ZQRAmUDAJ9Q8cUGdii55uGM2uQJj7ICUqGTwACgm78g rYYpiMdrJW0XS+Xou15bREE= =m1Lp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============= Key ID: 0x964F ED94 on --keyserver http://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key fingerprint = 35DD 3279 EB3E A711 1205 466F 4B8E 4940 964F ED94 ==========================================================================================
