RFS: gdisk (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.6.11-1 of my package gdisk. The version in actual frozen testing is quite old (0.5.1), and it would be great if the last version 0.6.11 could be available in Squeeze. It builds these binary packages: gdisk - GPT fdisk text-mode partitioning tool The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gdisk - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gdisk/gdisk_0.6.11-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me, thanks in advance. Kind regards Guillaume Delacour signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: dbmail (updated package)
Hi all, Just a brief reminder that I havent heard back from anyone. This package has received sponsorship from various people in the past, who have indicated lack of interest in continued sponsorship, or have stopped replying to requests. Some of this may be because of the long intervals between package updates, which is wholly my fault since I'm the upstream maintainer as well. Still, I'd really like to have updated packages uploaded. thanks. On 09/18/2010 07:46 PM, Paul J Stevens wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.17-1 of my package dbmail. It builds these binary packages: dbmail - base package for the dbmail email solution dbmail-mysql - MySQL module for Dbmail dbmail-pgsql - PostgreSQL module for Dbmail The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 481268, 482282, 513652, 542080, 550259, 596465 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dbmail - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dbmail/dbmail_2.2.17-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlandshttp://www.nfg.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ca858c0.4000...@nfg.nl
Re: Four days
Hi all, Hey everyone, Niels Thykier and I were talking on #debian-mentors. I was saying that I find the debian-mentors list kind of lonely and impersonal -- it's mostly RFSs, and so many emails don't even get an answer. How depressing! While I can understand your feelings, I still have several questions and somewhat contradictory remarks. Obviously I can only speak for myself. - Briefly looking at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/09/ it seems that the number of emails not being responded to by anyone is not that high. Furthermore it seems there's a lot more to this list than just RFS. And I found only a single non-RFS email that wasn't responded to. - As a mentor, as far as RFS are concerned, I can only work on packages where I have some proper background. That is, I should be using those packages or work on related packages. - As a mentor, I cannot look at each and every RFS, I'll have to be able to spot interesting packages quickly. I therefore ignore all RFS with package names where I cannot deduce that they could be relevant for me. Hint: it might be useful to add the short description of the main binary package to the subject (I have no idea what, e.g., vavoom is about). - Although debian-mentors is a default destination for RFS, it would probably better to contact one of the teams that works on related packages. Again, the vavoom package (I now looked at the RFS): Why wasn't pkg-games-de...@lists.a.d.o contacted? So I was thinking it would be nice if every email thread got a public reply within four days. That's a goal that Niels and I have set, and we hope maybe some of you help too. Even if we reply, Eek, I'm swamped. Try again later, I figure that is nicer than hearing nothing back. Would you mind to elaborate on the expected benefit of such a step? *Whom* would you expect to be doing such replies? Is that more than an ACK, your message made it to the list (you can check that by looking at the list archives as well)? I think you are only curing some symptoms, but fail to tackle the underlying root cause (some of which might be the points I mentioned above). In general, I encourage mentees and mentors to consider 4 days the timeout on your debian-mentors conversations. So if you email your usual sponsor and don't hear an answer within 4 days, try once more. I'm not sure how mentees usually handle the situation where a package has already been sponsored once. I'd expect mentors to be ready to handle further uploads, and IMHO such RFS shouldn't even pop up on the list. After a few rounds, people should be both ready and willing to apply for Debian-Maintainer status. After another four days, email the list asking for a sponsor (explaining that you have a normal sponsor). Should the mentor indeed be non-responsive, this should be *clearly* indicated in the subject of an RFS email to debian-mentors. I'm hoping to take some of the uncertainty out of the process. What do you guys think? And what other cultural improvements can we make to debian-mentors? What else can we do to make this place supportive and helpful for the progress of y'all mentees into sparkly Debian contributors and developers? IMHO one of the most important steps would be for mentees to look for appropriate teams already working on similar packages. It would actually be beneficial if people first subscribed to their respective lists to see what's going on there and then try to get in touch with them about a new package. Hope this helps (mentees and mentors alike), Michael pgpk8Ucjh1DEO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: gdisk (updated package)
Hi, Guillaume Delacour g...@iroqwa.org writes: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.6.11-1 of my package gdisk. The version in actual frozen testing is quite old (0.5.1), and it would be great if the last version 0.6.11 could be available in Squeeze. The release team no longer accepts new upstream releases, except for bugfix-only releases in some cases[1]. Looking at the changelog, gdisk introduces lots of other changes in both upstream code and packaging. I also found several important bugs mentioned in the upstream changelog: - Fixed serious data corruption bug on big-endian (PowerPC and similar) systems. [0.6.3] - Fixed off-by-one bug in specification of partition when using the -T (--transform-bsd) option in sgdisk. [0.6.4] - Fixed major bug in hybrid MBR creation, which caused incorrect protective partition end point settings and occasionally other problems. [0.6.9] - Fixed bug that created backwards attribute field values (bit #2 was entered as bit #61, etc.). [0.6.10] Do these affect version 0.5.1 currently in Squeeze? I am not sure how severe they are, but at least the first bug looks release critical. Regards, Ansgar [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/09/msg0.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vd5jed2o@eisei.43-1.org
Re: Four days
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2010-10-03 13:16, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Hi all, Hey everyone, Niels Thykier and I were talking on #debian-mentors. I was saying that I find the debian-mentors list kind of lonely and impersonal -- it's mostly RFSs, and so many emails don't even get an answer. How depressing! While I can understand your feelings, I still have several questions and somewhat contradictory remarks. Obviously I can only speak for myself. - Briefly looking at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/09/ it seems that the number of emails not being responded to by anyone is not that high. Furthermore it seems there's a lot more to this list than just RFS. And I found only a single non-RFS email that wasn't responded to. Manually counting all the unanswered emails to d-mentors for 2010-09 I get: RFS QA: 1 RFS: 34 RFS NMU: 1 non-RFS: 1 or 37 unanswered emails. This includes duplicates like 2nd/3rd ping. When I counted I assumed any email that had received a reply was answered satisfactory, btw. Personally I would like to see that 37 drop closer to 0. - As a mentor, as far as RFS are concerned, I can only work on packages where I have some proper background. That is, I should be using those packages or work on related packages. I agree that we cannot expect that any DD can sponsor any given package dumped on d-mentor. But if we see an RFS remain unanswered we can have a look at it and try to associate the package with the relevant teams or keywords (e.g. as you did with vavoom - contact games team). - As a mentor, I cannot look at each and every RFS, I'll have to be able to spot interesting packages quickly. I therefore ignore all RFS with package names where I cannot deduce that they could be relevant for me. Hint: it might be useful to add the short description of the main binary package to the subject (I have no idea what, e.g., vavoom is about). Perhaps we can extend mentor's RFS template to recommend such a practise? And even in the case where mentees do not do it (good enough to easily sort the package) we can (as explained above) spend the 10-20 minutes to write review the email + d/control file and come with a suggestion for whom to contact or simply reply with a this package is this and that so other DDs can easier find it. - Although debian-mentors is a default destination for RFS, it would probably better to contact one of the teams that works on related packages. Again, the vavoom package (I now looked at the RFS): Why wasn't pkg-games-de...@lists.a.d.o contacted? Agreed; it would be nice if we could have mentors.d.n recommend this (particularly if it could come with educated guesses based on the source package). So I was thinking it would be nice if every email thread got a public reply within four days. That's a goal that Niels and I have set, and we hope maybe some of you help too. Even if we reply, Eek, I'm swamped. Try again later, I figure that is nicer than hearing nothing back. Would you mind to elaborate on the expected benefit of such a step? *Whom* would you expect to be doing such replies? Is that more than an ACK, your message made it to the list (you can check that by looking at the list archives as well)? I think you are only curing some symptoms, but fail to tackle the underlying root cause (some of which might be the points I mentioned above). Personally I would hope any mentor and possibly also non-DDs with experience could help with this. Again they do not have to sponsor ever RFS they reply to, either promote its keywords or (if possible) redirect it to a team that handles the particular type of packages. In general, I encourage mentees and mentors to consider 4 days the timeout on your debian-mentors conversations. So if you email your usual sponsor and don't hear an answer within 4 days, try once more. I'm not sure how mentees usually handle the situation where a package has already been sponsored once. I'd expect mentors to be ready to handle further uploads, and IMHO such RFS shouldn't even pop up on the list. After a few rounds, people should be both ready and willing to apply for Debian-Maintainer status. In my case I have been lucky; my sponsors always said Feel free to send your next RFS for this package to me directly for my non-team-maintained packages. After another four days, email the list asking for a sponsor (explaining that you have a normal sponsor). Should the mentor indeed be non-responsive, this should be *clearly* indicated in the subject of an RFS email to debian-mentors. True. If you see a RFS age away, where the mentee has forgotten to write this in the subject and you would not sponsor it yourself (e.g. because it is outside your domain), you could simply follow up with a Usual sponsor is VAC/unresponsive/$something (provided that the mail itself contains this information). I'm hoping to
Re: RFS: xburst-tools
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Xiangfu Liu xiangf...@gmail.com wrote: I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Looks like Li uploaded it without replying to the list. The uploaded one has a different version number to the RFS, I hope it was better than the package I saw, which was not ready for the archive in my opinion. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=axc2e6hh+wt32rarufza=yxhrapa05q2ju...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four days
It probably would help most if more DDs had time for and interest in sponsoring and mentoring new people. Maybe you and others could blog about your rewarding experiences in helping folks out on -mentors in order to encourage other DDs to help out. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimwsox2cswfmxovzwtobd3cfy89x3a9qyly7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four days
An expansion... I used to do regular reviews of every unanswered recent RFS. Mostly I stopped doing those due to lack of time. After a while doing them got demotivating due to the amount of problems with most packages and the lack of response to issues, or if there was a response there were a few things fixed but everything else ignored. During this my policy was to not sponsor any packages, just to improve their quality. If mentors.d.n were to gain the quality metrics stuff planned for debexpo, perhaps the average quality of RFS entries would go up and reviewing and uploading packages would be enjoyable again. If that were to happen I would definitely set the metrics I would like to see in my profile and look at packages that met those criteria. Another demotivator is people who treat the archive as a dumping ground for their pet package; do a one-shot upload to get it in and essentially leave it orphaned after that. I tried to avoid that by having a policy of not sponsoring anything, but I still have a few such packages on my DDPO page. I'm not sure how to avoid that but actually upload stuff regularly. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikorr7vzccig4wqmopqzvayoezpnbjr4tgyq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four days
Hi all, I'm not involved in either mentoring nor creating...just lurking on the mailing list. :-) On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 00:21, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: An expansion... I used to do regular reviews of every unanswered recent RFS. Mostly I stopped doing those due to lack of time. After a while doing them got demotivating due to the amount of problems with most packages and the lack of response to issues, or if there was a response there were a few things fixed but everything else ignored. During this my policy was to not sponsor any packages, just to improve their quality. If mentors.d.n were to gain the quality metrics stuff planned for debexpo, perhaps the average quality of RFS entries would go up and reviewing and uploading packages would be enjoyable again. If that were to happen I would definitely set the metrics I would like to see in my profile and look at packages that met those criteria. But about Paul's message, one thing that would be nice to have is a checklist or a decision tree for people to submit proposed packages. I did look through the documentation on how to create a package and it is complete...but as with all things that are complete, it is also a bit verbose. :-) But besides the checklist already there, perhaps have one which has yes/no questions and if they are all yes', then it's time to find a sponsor. If a mentor finds out they were lax in following the checklist, then maybe consider a temporary black list...i.e., they can't ask for a sponsor for a fixed amount of time or a particular package is blocked for a fixed amount of time. Seems worrying if mentors' time is being abused...maybe it is ok now [???] but if things continue, then their time could be used for other things (i.e., replying on this mailing list, which was the start of this thread?). Another demotivator is people who treat the archive as a dumping ground for their pet package; do a one-shot upload to get it in and essentially leave it orphaned after that. I tried to avoid that by having a policy of not sponsoring anything, but I still have a few such packages on my DDPO page. I'm not sure how to avoid that but actually upload stuff regularly. I also have another question as someone who is just a user and probably doesn't know much. But are packages that are uploaded into Debian ever removed? I've used Debian for many years and I think it is great how all the packages work together flawlessly, but one minor annoyance is the number of packages that do the same thing. Having a choice is always great, but one cannot tell if a package is actively maintained or was someone's pet package that isn't looked after anymore. Or maybe there is an option to aptitude that lists the packages in order of last update? Even so, I haven't heard of a way for neglected packages to leave Debian. Is it possible or is it because distribution by CDs and even DVDs is disappearing, it doesn't matter anymore? Just a few thoughts...thanks! Ray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiksvm574tuc2toonv2y5kc6yxwgruopxcm=u...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: fritzing
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fritzing. * Package name: fritzing Version : 0.4.3b-1 Upstream Author : Fritzing Developers i...@fritzing.org * URL : http://fritzing.org * License : GPLv3 CC:BY-SA Section : electronics It builds these binary packages: fritzing - Easy-to-use, electronic design software My motivation for maintaining this package is: I want to collaborate with this project and I would like my package in official repos of Debian and Ubuntu. This is my second try and now I have a valid branch in launchpad. I will try to upload to REVU, too. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fritzing - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fritzing/fritzing_0.4.3b-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Enrique Hernández Bello -- Enrique Hernández Bello
Re: Four days
Hi Paul, Thank you for answering my queries so quickly; obviously, I didn't know many of the things you listed. On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 01:20, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Raymond Wan r@aist.go.jp wrote: following the checklist, then maybe consider a temporary black list...i.e., they can't ask for a sponsor for a fixed amount of time or a particular package is blocked for a fixed amount of time. Seems worrying if mentors' time is being abused...maybe it is ok now [???] but if things continue, then their time could be used for other things (i.e., replying on this mailing list, which was the start of this thread?). There are many checklists, none automated, except for lintian, which is used in many RFS mails, but many folks rely on the outdated version on mentors.d.n that doesn't run the full battery of lintian tests. Ah! Thanks for the links! I guess one point is that there is neither a reward system or a penalty system (i.e., temporary black list?) for people to get it right before asking a mentor to sponsor a package. Maybe that's harsh...but the workload should be moved down the hierarchy...not up. :-) Yes, (many many) packages are removed: http://ftp-master.debian.org/#pending http://ftp-master.debian.org/#removed http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals Some of these are useful and others not. Personally I'd like to see more removals and automated removals to motivate folks to keep their stuff in shape. Thanks! I didn't know about the list of removals. Looking at the Wiki page, it seems the conditions for removal are pretty low. It would be nice if no longer maintained was added to the list. (Maybe calculated from when it was last touched and how many outstanding bugs are there and how long have they not been addressed, with some kind of grace period.) Of course, if it hasn't been touched for a while but is problem free, then there is no reason to remove it. I presume this is what you mean by keep their stuff in shape... Thanks again for the info! Ray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktin_vim-znzqeybua8f4w1-yfjvd8snrfoeuy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: nesc
Razvan Musaloiu-E. scrisse: It builds these binary packages: nesc - programming language for deeply networked systems Thanks for working on this. I'll take care of it, a complete review will follow in a bunch of days. The compiler has been stable for many years and a deb package was traditionally hosted by the Stanford University. This is an attempt to promote it to Debian proper. I'd still like to thank the authors, so many builds done with it. What's unclear from a first glance on your RFS is, are you the original packagers of that? If not, can we get them in the loop? The more eyeballs, the better :) Cheers, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso) : :' : The Universal O.S.| lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3 `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: roxterm (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.18.5-3 of my package roxterm. It builds these binary packages: roxterm- Multi-tabbed GTK/VTE terminal emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 598971 I think the bug is potentially serious enough and the fix trivial enough to warrant inclusion in squeeze, so shoud we ping the release team again? The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_1.18.5-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Tony Houghton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ca8b4f4.7040...@realh.co.uk
Re: RFS: fritzing
You should avoid getting it into the Ubuntu repositories directly -- there is a sync every cycle, if it's uploaded to Debian, it will be in Ubuntu in time for the next release, try focusing on getting this RFS through the Debian system -- no need to use REVU for this. 2010/10/3 Enrique Hernández Bello ehbe...@gmail.com: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fritzing. * Package name : fritzing Version : 0.4.3b-1 Upstream Author : Fritzing Developers i...@fritzing.org * URL : http://fritzing.org * License : GPLv3 CC:BY-SA Section : electronics It builds these binary packages: fritzing - Easy-to-use, electronic design software My motivation for maintaining this package is: I want to collaborate with this project and I would like my package in official repos of Debian and Ubuntu. This is my second try and now I have a valid branch in launchpad. I will try to upload to REVU, too. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fritzing - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fritzing/fritzing_0.4.3b-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Enrique Hernández Bello -- Enrique Hernández Bello -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=njpnsvmuwo4fzarjmtuqcwhgh0vxhm=lxh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: dbmail (updated package)
Hi Paul, Just a brief reminder that I havent heard back from anyone. You might have noticed the thread started by Asheesh (with [1] being my reply). Your RFS email is prime example of those messages usually failing to pass my filter. So what's wrong this RFS email: - The package name dbmail isn't all too specific. Once I looked at the package page I noticed that I would indeed be interested in using such a software, but that I wouldn't have guessed from the package name alone. Well, in this case I must add that the short description base package for the dbmail email solution is not that useful either (saying that dbmail is dbmail...). - This (updated package) mainly tells me can be ignored, they already had a sponsor earlier on. This package has received sponsorship from various people in the past, who have indicated lack of interest in continued sponsorship, or have stopped replying to requests. Some of this may be because of the long intervals between package updates, which is wholly my fault since I'm the upstream maintainer as well. Still, I'd really like to have updated packages uploaded. [...] I can't say that I'll take a look at it rightaway, but I'll take care of it in the next days. Meanwhile please contact the debian-l10n-english list to ask for a review of your package descriptions (and please improve the short descriptions - I guess this is email *server* software, but this isn't clear), add a Homepage field to your package (doesn't seem to be there, at least there is no link on packages.debian.org/sid/dbmail), make sure it is lintian clean, etc. Although reply-to is set to the list, feel free to contact me in personal mail. Best, Michael pgp7kF8Xdj1Ub.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Four days
[...] - Briefly looking at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/09/ it seems that the number of emails not being responded to by anyone is not that high. Furthermore it seems there's a lot more to this list than just RFS. And I found only a single non-RFS email that wasn't responded to. Manually counting all the unanswered emails to d-mentors for 2010-09 I get: RFS QA: 1 RFS: 34 RFS NMU: 1 non-RFS: 1 or 37 unanswered emails. This includes duplicates like 2nd/3rd ping. When I counted I assumed any email that had received a reply was answered satisfactory, btw. Personally I would like to see that 37 drop closer to 0. See also pabs' messages: Working on RFS as mentors can apparently be just as depressing. In other (more drastic) words: I see no good reason to respond to SPAM/UBE (the sheer amount of RFS makes them bulk email, and low quality makes them unsolicited). I just feel it's only mentors being blamed for not responding in time, but did any of today's RFS submitters (and potential mentees) actually read this thread? - As a mentor, as far as RFS are concerned, I can only work on packages where I have some proper background. That is, I should be using those packages or work on related packages. I agree that we cannot expect that any DD can sponsor any given package dumped on d-mentor. But if we see an RFS remain unanswered we can have a look at it and try to associate the package with the relevant teams or keywords (e.g. as you did with vavoom - contact games team). Maybe mentors.d.n could include a link to http://wiki.debian.org/Teams? - As a mentor, I cannot look at each and every RFS, I'll have to be able to spot interesting packages quickly. I therefore ignore all RFS with package names where I cannot deduce that they could be relevant for me. Hint: it might be useful to add the short description of the main binary package to the subject (I have no idea what, e.g., vavoom is about). Perhaps we can extend mentor's RFS template to recommend such a practise? And even in the case where mentees do not do it (good enough to easily sort the package) we can (as explained above) spend the 10-20 minutes to write review the email + d/control file and come with a suggestion for whom to contact or simply reply with a this package is this and that so other DDs can easier find it. Well, I cannot easily afford that time of spending 10 minutes or more for each and every (or, say, every fith) RFS. This isn't kindergarten. For example, I would expect people sending something to this list to have been lingering around for a while, just a netiquette suggests. Under this assumption people sending and RFS later today should have read our conversation here. Either they ignored it or didn't even read it (I actively refuse to read what RFS: nesc or RFS: fritzing are about, but those RFS have received attention anyhow). - Although debian-mentors is a default destination for RFS, it would probably better to contact one of the teams that works on related packages. Again, the vavoom package (I now looked at the RFS): Why wasn't pkg-games-de...@lists.a.d.o contacted? Agreed; it would be nice if we could have mentors.d.n recommend this (particularly if it could come with educated guesses based on the source package). See suggested link above. [...] I very much agree with this one; though the question is how do we promote this better to mentees (particularly first time mentees)? One would be adding it to the mentors.d.n RFS template, but can you think of other things? I /think/ the New Maintainers Guide recently was updated to promote teams as well, but I could be wrong. How do people actually find their way to this list? It seems that mentors.d.n is widely adopted, so adding information to the template or even a checklist before the RFS template is shown could be very effective. I might sound a bit harsh in several points; I don't (yet) share pabs' frustration, but maybe just because I do only pick up a very small number of RFS. I just felt the initial post in this thread completely left out the aspect that also mentees could do better. Sure, mentors could do a lot better, but this must be a collaborative effort. Best, Michael pgp6dvx02qc6f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Four days
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 19:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Asheesh Laroia wrote: Hey everyone, Niels Thykier and I were talking on #debian-mentors. I was saying that I find the debian-mentors list kind of lonely and impersonal -- it's mostly RFSs, and so many emails don't even get an answer. How depressing! So I was thinking it would be nice if every email thread got a public reply within four days. That's a goal that Niels and I have set, and we hope maybe some of you help too. Even if we reply, Eek, I'm swamped. Try again later, I figure that is nicer than hearing nothing back. In general, I encourage mentees and mentors to consider 4 days the timeout on your debian-mentors conversations. So if you email your usual sponsor and don't hear an answer within 4 days, try once more. After another four days, email the list asking for a sponsor (explaining that you have a normal sponsor). I'm hoping to take some of the uncertainty out of the process. What do you guys think? And what other cultural improvements can we make to debian-mentors? What else can we do to make this place supportive and helpful for the progress of y'all mentees into sparkly Debian contributors and developers? As someone who has attempted to go through the mentoring process, I agree very much that it is rather depressing. I think a possibly good solution would be to set up a mentors.debian.net bug page (similar to other debian resources such as [0]). That would make it much clearer which mentoring tasks are still open. It would also make it possible categorize new submissions, which would help potential mentors focus on their areas of interest. Best wishes, Mike [0] http://bugs.debian.org/release.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101003192055.c4616b77.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: nesc
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Luca Bruno lu...@debian.org wrote: Razvan Musaloiu-E. scrisse: It builds these binary packages: nesc - programming language for deeply networked systems Thanks for working on this. I'll take care of it, a complete review will follow in a bunch of days. The compiler has been stable for many years and a deb package was traditionally hosted by the Stanford University. This is an attempt to promote it to Debian proper. I'd still like to thank the authors, so many builds done with it. What's unclear from a first glance on your RFS is, are you the original packagers of that? If not, can we get them in the loop? The more eyeballs, the better :) Thanks for your quick response. As far as I know, the original packager is Kevin Klues. I also CCed Philip Levis (the head of the tinyos-core) and David Gay (the author of nesc). If I missed some interested parties, please feel free to CC them. In case it helps, here is a link to the previous packaging: http://hinrg.cs.jhu.edu/git/?p=razvanm/tinyos-toolchain-packages.git;a=tree;f=sources/nesc-1.3.1 -- Razvan ME Cheers, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso) : :' : The Universal O.S. | lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3 `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinwt\f7fypo1+nzmuywywlw3vzcrhpon67...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four days
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes: As someone who has attempted to go through the mentoring process, I agree very much that it is rather depressing. How much of that is actually a problem, though? How much is an integral part of gaining humility as to the state of the packaging work, and the pain of learning new conventions and processes? I'm all in favour of lowering *unnecessary* barriers. But not at the expense of the necessary parts of the mentoring process itself: to teach prospective maintainers to stand on their own feet and learn what doesn't work, as a necessary part of learning what does work. So when we identify a point of pain, I think it's essential to ask: is this pain necessary to the learning process for this person? -- \ “I've always wanted to be somebody, but I see now that I should | `\ have been more specific.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6aeztfr@benfinney.id.au
RFS: pgfouine (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.2-2 of my package pgfouine. It builds these binary packages: pgfouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 580880 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pgfouine - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pgfouine/pgfouine_1.2-2.dsc I would be glad if someone checks and/or upload this package for me thanks -- Luis Uribe http://eviled.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: pgfouine (updated package)
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:59:51PM -0500, Luis Uribe wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.2-2 of my package pgfouine. Are you looking for a single sponsorship, or an on-going sponsoring relationship? Are you currently, or are you planning on becoming, a DM or DD? - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101004043842.gb32...@hezmatt.org
