On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:24:12 +0100 (CET) Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One important thing are more frequent releases. We don't have to release > as often as other distributions but IMHO it's needed to have a new stable totally agreed, I hope debian-installer will be one of the solutions to this... but we, the maintainers, have a great responsibility on this! I noticed that many people ran to upload new upstream versions of their packages when the first woody freeze announce was released, and I think there's something wrong with this... why wait so much? if one does this the package won't get tested for many months, etc... > Most of us who work for Debian do this in our spare time. But I do > personally disagree with the "you can't force a volunteer to do anything" > argument I heard in several discussions. These were discussions about I have one simples thought about this "you can't force a volunteer to do anything" argument: if you don't want to do things right, give them up... there are people willing to do it out there... you chosed to be responsible for that package/task, nobody forced you, then do it right > - Make debconf mandatory for all packages that interact with the user > while installing/removing a package in woody+1. > One positive effect would be for the user that he doesn't has to answer > questions several times during the installation of the packages - he can > instead go to drink a cup of tea after he answered the debconf questions > that come en bloc. Another positive effect is that this makes life > easier for everyone working on automatic installations of Debian. totally agreed too, debconf is a great step on Debian's evolution... it should be a 'must' on policy IMO... would someone with some experience on doing ammendments care to write one? > On the other hand he is responsible for the packages he maintains and IMHO > this implies that we can expect from a maintainer that he tries to fix RC > bugs in his packages at least once a month and to try to fix the other > bugs in his packages from time to time [3]. If it's generally agreed that and if he cannot, he should orphan the packages, of course > perfectly). But if you look closer you'll see that it will harm Debian as > a whole if popular packages like e.g. evolution that are currently not in > woody won't make it into the stable release (many users will say: "What? > Debian has so many thousand packages but this popular package that is in > every other distribution isn't in the recently released Debian 3.0?"). yes... that 'will be removed from woody' is no good for Debian as a whole, that's why this is not a good way to force maintainers to do things... []s! -- Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov <http://www.metainfo.org/kov> *---------* -+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+-+ | .''`. | Debian GNU/Linux: <http://www.debian.org> | | : :' : + Debian BR.......: <http://debian-br.cipsga.org.br>+ | `. `'` + Q: "Why did the chicken cross the road?" + | `- | A: "Upstream's decision." -- hmh | *---------* -+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+-+