On Sunday 14 October 2007 20:59:54 tim hall wrote: > Joost Yervante Damad wrote: > > On Sunday 14 October 2007 11:32:28 tim hall wrote: > >> I wrote: > >>> I think it would be a better idea to put out an RFP on ingen > >> > >> Judging by the complete lack of bug reports against om, I'm guessing the > >> package fails to run on anyone's system. > > > > AFAIK it runs fine on 32bit intel machines. > > > >> I think om should be Orphaned, > >> I know that might seem slightly odd, considering that it is a > >> co-maintained package already, but this action may result in the most > >> appropriate outcome. > > > > Which is ? (Which outcome?) > > Am I being a bit obtuse? Sorry I'll try to clarify: > > I am assuming from previous conversations that you want to stop > maintaining om. > I am also assuming that Free would appreciate a co-maintainer if > om/ingen continues to be maintained by debian-multimedia or that it > would be worthwhile to find a DD who wants to take sole responsibility. > > If om runs fine on 32bit intel machines (apart from mine) then it is > still potentially useful in its present form, however it will present > problems in future if it FTBFS on other architectures or generates any > RC bugs. > > I am suggesting RFPing ingen and Orphaning om so as to put the kind of > entries in the WNPP list that might attract an interested DD.
In this sense I understand your reasoning. I'll orphan om. However I won't file a RFP for ingen, as I don't plan on using it, if anyone else plans to use it, they should file a RFP :) > That is > the outcome I'd like I guess. I'm hoping it would be apparent that in > fact it is ingen that needs the work, with om being replaced with a > dummy package for upgrade purposes. It may be that there is a more > straightforward way of doing this. If om gets kicked out of the archive, ingen could very easially have a Provides: om line, which has mostly the same effect as a dummy package. Dummy packages are best avoided if not really needed. > The one major reservation to all this is that I'm guessing, due to om's > low popcon rating and lack of bug-reports, that I'm the only person who > actually cares about this application and that only because it might be > useful in theory. In which case I might as well build ingen from source > and forget about it. I guess it makes sense if you would RFP it. I checked the source and it seems not a trivial package to package. > I'm persevering with this thread because I suspect om/ingen may be worth > the effort. It does appear to have 30 actual users. I suspect that > several people have installed and forgotten about it because of the lack > of menu entry. I also suspect that most users may not be aware that an > om package exists for Debian. The lack of response from anyone else is > starting to confirm those suspicions. > > I'd also be very grateful if anyone wants to challenge my assumptions, > suggestions and suspicions on this matter. :) Apologies if this is > gratuitously verbose. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Joost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
