Hi,
I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> A package was submitted to savannah.gnu.org
> This mail was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Shamim Islam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> described the package as follows:
> License: gpl
> Other License:
> Package: rc-sysinit
> System name: rc-sysinit
> Type: GNU
>
> Description:
> Modified initscripts rc.sysinit for correctly handling fsck responses based on
> Mandrake 9.1 initscripts code.
>
> Should work correctly for RedHat 9.0 and others with slight modification.
>
> rc.sysinit as it stands today has problems:
>
> Does not honor PROMPT found in /etc/sysconfig/autofsck when root filesystem contains
> trivial errors
>
> Contains repetitious sections for handling fsck responses.
>
> Contains repetitious sections for handling defaulted user input behavior
>
> Is inconsisten in handling fsck error levels - fsck returns bitfields - rc.sysinit
> checks for actual integers.
>
> rc.sysinit does not handle interrupted powerfail shutdowns correctly.
>
> Headless machines suffer user input requirements for trivial errors and require
> monitors and keyboards to be plugged in.
>
> Desktop systems suffer user input requirements for trivial errors and require users
> to be more informed about problems than they should.
Did you contact the rc.sysinit authors? I'm not just whether a fork
would be justified at this moment.
We would like you to enquire the possibility of directly working with
the author/maintainer of that script. If you cannot reach an
agreement, you're welcome to resubmit your project, including details
about the reasons of the fork in the description.
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
_______________________________________________
Savannah-hackers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers
