I'd lke to see the ITP be MUST but the ITP template be SHOULD.
--
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/20120415221713.GA24051@debian
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 17:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Might be best to both at once (using X-Debbugs-CC)?
That's fine if the upstream author is sufficiently aware of Debian
processes, but if not then the ITP template is rather an impersonal way
to make contact.
Despite licences, it's polite to st
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> People embarking on packaging a bit of software are also supposed to
> contact the upstream author. When one contacts the upstream author
> and they respond quickly and say they'd love to have the software
> packaged and they don't kn
People embarking on packaging a bit of software are also supposed to
contact the upstream author. When one contacts the upstream author
and they respond quickly and say they'd love to have the software
packaged and they don't know of anyone else doing so, an ITP can seem
(depending on the particul
Le Wednesday 28 March 2012 07:31:19, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
> > The best way to become "hyper-efficient" is to avoid this kind of
> > overhead, automate everything, and be prepared to fail quickly and
> > iterate.
>
> What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But are they always usefull? Does a package that is ready for upload
> already need an ITP? That is the question.
The point of an ITP is that it should be sent before starting the
packaging. If the package is already done then ... wel
Wookey writes:
> +++ 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 upst
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > 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 w
+++ 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. Mos
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes:
>> What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
>> debian/control and send the ITP? I can write that!
Yes please.
> The Perl group already has a script that does this: examples/get-itp
> in git.debian.org:/git/p
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 08:36:58, David Banks wrote:
>>
>> In the specific case of mosh, I have posted three RFS messages to
>> debian-mentors since filing the ITP, in addition to the creation of the
>> RFS bug after the sponsorship-requests procedure was announced, so the
>>
Le Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:46:21PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
>
> But, writing an ITP requires looking up most of the control file data,
> and requires researching the copyright too.
Hi all,
I have sent ITPs containing a copy of the control and copyright files instead
of the proposed layout, and
Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes:
> What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
> debian/control and send the ITP? I can write that!
The Perl group already has a script that does this: examples/get-itp
in git.debian.org:/git/pkg-perl/scripts.git. I don't use it myself and
On 28/03/2012 00:46, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jon Dowland wrote:
>> That was Joey's hypothetical, iirc, and I don't really agree with his
>> supposition that initial packaging is such quick work that the ITP
>> delay is significant.
>
> The typical package is fairly trivial to create. Often the rules fi
Jon Dowland wrote:
> That was Joey's hypothetical, iirc, and I don't really agree with his
> supposition that initial packaging is such quick work that the ITP
> delay is significant.
The typical package is fairly trivial to create. Often the rules file
doesn't need modifications anymore, so unles
On Ma, 27 mar 12, 08:36:58, David Banks wrote:
>
> In the specific case of mosh, I have posted three RFS messages to
> debian-mentors since filing the ITP, in addition to the creation of the
> RFS bug after the sponsorship-requests procedure was announced, so the
> package was certainly being work
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 08:36:58AM +0100, David Banks wrote:
> As a post-script, although I am sad to see this furore, I am selfishly
> happy to see my package finally get some attention after languishing in
> -mentors for months and months. ;)
I think Christine sponsoring your package would be
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:06:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> > e) useful to prevent a duplicate work.
>
> Pointless if the package is uploaded the moment the BTS responds with
> the bug number for the ITP, which was the hypotetical.
That was Joey's hypo
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:11:54AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes:
> > There's a flip-side to this story, which is what happens when an ITP is
> > filed
> > and left-for-dead. This then turns into a situation where a prospective
> > new
> > packager then needs to fig
Hi list,
On 25/03/12 21:00, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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.
In the specific case of mosh, I have posted three RFS mes
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> [ sorry for duplicate, Neil, pressed the wrong button ]
>
> On 2012-03-26 09:17, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" wrote:
> [...]
>> > No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
>> > ITP
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> I disagree almost completely.
>
> On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
>> But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
>
> No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
> ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of deve
Hi.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:17:53AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > b) useful for the Debian project since experienced people may
> >immediately point that there are/there were some problems which
> >prevented the package to be added before or made the package
> >disappear from Debi
[ sorry for duplicate, Neil, pressed the wrong button ]
On 2012-03-26 09:17, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" wrote:
[...]
> > No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
> > ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of develope
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:20:10 +0200
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There might be a good reason why the ITP is staled, like your own
> example with copyright issues. What would you say if someone else just
> ignored your ITP and uploaded the package without clearing up the
> copyright issues or eve
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" wrote:
> On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
> > But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
>
> No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
> ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of de
I disagree almost completely.
On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
> But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of developers, which is:
a) useful for the ITP ow
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Joey Hess writes:
> ...
>> > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
>> > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
>> > copyright issue, and one for
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
...
> > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
> > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
> > copyright issue, and one for a package that had an independe
On 25/03/12 16:31, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Christine Spang writes:
>> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
>> alternate name.
>
> Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
> in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
If its been u
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There might be a good reason why the ITP is staled, like your own
> example with copyright issues. What would you say if someone else just
> ignored your ITP and uploaded the package without clearing up the
> copyright issues or even uploading a different package hijac
Joey Hess writes:
> Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Christoph Egger writes:
>> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>>
>> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
>
> But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
> The turnaround time for packaging the average packag
On 03/25/2012 10:31 PM, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Christine Spang writes:
>> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
>> alternate name.
>
> Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
> in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
I think
Hi!
Christine Spang writes:
> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
> alternate name.
Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
Regards
Christoph
--
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9
Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph Egger writes:
> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
The turnaround time for packaging the average package is less than the
turnaround t
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:15:47PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph Egger writes:
> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
Right, the developer's reference isn't policy. Forcing the creation of a
WNPP bug for a package that's already re
Christoph Egger wrote:
> Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
> you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”)
> against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to create a new
> package, including, but not li
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:14:42PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph, please
My bad---please excuse my brain's autocompletion; Christopher is a much
more common name in the US.
> There's a RFS from February
I did miss that. I do suspect that the fact that no one has sponsored
that pack
Christoph Egger writes:
> Read Policy 5.1 again
Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
> Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
> you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”)
> against the pseudo-package wnpp describ
Hi!
Christine Spang writes:
> hi Christopher,
Christoph, please
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The `mosh` you quote reads
>>
>> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
>>
>> This is something totaly different from
hi Christopher,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The `mosh` you quote reads
>
> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
>
> This is something totaly different from
>
> mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
I propose that t
Hi!
The `mosh` you quote reads
mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
This is something totaly different from
mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
which this bug is about.
Additionally I find it highly inappropriate for someone to take a
package name with an ope
On Wed 15 Sep 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone made a typo and closed the wrong bug?
It was apparently done by the maintainer, and no further response
from him. Curious.
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
43 matches
Mail list logo
