* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20001203 00:01]: > After the discussion where James and Martin totally disagreed with > me
I do NOT totally disagree with you. (I made that clear when you approached me.) > When I see that a package with missing build dependencies (except > debhelper) that has in debian/copyright a "Copyright: not yet known" > and 2 other bugs is enough to become a Debian maintainer > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss-0011/msg00103.html) > I can't see any quality standards that are needed. The NM you're talking about knew about the missing Copyright and also knew that he would never upload such a package to woody. He had already contacted the upstream maintainer to get more information about the license before he sent the package to me. The Build-Depends: I didn't count but I guess about 80 - 90% get it wrong. I point them to the manual, tell them why it's necessary, tell them about setting up a chroot environment (which, BTW, is not documented well at all). And I have them fix it. There are packages in Woody from experienced developers with wrong build dependencies. When a build depdencency is broken, they will sooner or later get a bug report, and then fix it (I remember filing a bug against one of your packages, Adrian -- removing a unneeded build dependency is not a nice thing either, especially when you build depend on the package you want to build). I know it's all in the manuals, but it's a lot to learn for NMs. Why don't you write better documentation? e.g. a "check list before uploading my package" which I proposed earlier in this thread (and to which you didn't respond, Adrian, although I sent the message to you). -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
