On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote: > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted. > > Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they > are not allowed into unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that everyone who > is interested in these packages can quickly see where the problems are. If > there is any interest in contents of NEW this list would be very handy to get > > a quick overview of the problems plaguing NEW packages.
I can even tell you now all the easy ones: all libraries which are policy mandated to change their source name in case of soname change. The kernel-source and various kernel-patch/image/whatever package or other packages which need to have the version number embedded in the package name. Source package which gain or loose a couple of binary packages in a reasonable and easy-to-autocheck way. > Having a website separating the hard cases from the easy ones is the first > step needed to get a discussion about the rest going. no, first step is getting a guarantee that the above will be useful and accepted, or at least considered by the ftp-masters, or it is just work that will be thrown away, and i have better things to do than that. > And "discussion" in this case doesn't mean posting long rants from the > uploaders on d-devel how unfairly the cabal has ignored his package since he > uploaded it five years ago to NEW and never cared afterwards. I on various case posted to ftp-masters about some of my packages in NEW, which where important to get processed for whatever reason. I never got a single reply on any of those. But let's hope that the new blood and organisation of the ftp-master's team will help get this situation to manageable proportions, as new blood helped in the NM case, and others too. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]