Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers > stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The > packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group > of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being > in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help.
Absolutely. That's the Debian Way(tm). > The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high > quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer > the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go > to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has > to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. That's where the analogy breaks down, though. Analyzing software licensing situations doesn't require upload rights or a key on the developer key-ring. In fact, it doesn't require any developer privileges at all -- unless you count posting on debian mailing lists and occasionally filing bugs as developer privilege. > And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, > those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a > repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for > Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested > parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they > would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are > in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. > > As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org > to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03