Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:09:31 +0200 Adeodato Simó wrote: > + Ben Finney (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:25:57 +1000): > > > Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to > > *every* package. > Well, not even that, many of them are a pure matter of personal > preference, or apply directly only to him: Hopefully covered in this new section: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#general > 1. Use mentors.debian.net > 2. Increment the package version (especially that one) :-) > 10. You should be intending to join the Debian project This one has a larger impact on the rest of the document, in particular the emphasis on the amount of work that I expect maintainers to do before sending the RFS. > 12. I will not sponsor python, ruby, Java, KDE or mono packages > 13. All communication by email only > 16. The software you intend to package must be suitable for > inclusion in main > 17. I can't guarantee how quickly your upload will be made That last one is probably very common to all sponsors, just as an expression of the reality of typical sponsor / DD workload. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpEL8BMDZWt4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:13:09 +0200 Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to > > > *every* package. > > > Well, not even that, many of them are a pure matter of personal > > preference, or apply directly only to him: > > Forgot to add, I completely get it's not Neil who's saying these > guidelines should become some kind of standard, since he has never > said they apply to anybody except his sponsoring. If it would be useful, I am happy to separate those criteria that are personal from those that are more generalised, but you're absolutely right, Adeodato, I've always asserted that nothing in the page needs to apply to anybody except when I'm acting as sponsor (and I certainly try to implement the same guidelines for my own packages too, that's only fair). If that isn't clear on the page, I can add something to assert it explicitly. Even the generalised items do not necessarily have universality across all of Debian. > So, there's nothing > wrong with him adding subjective criteria in *his* document, and was > merely challenging the claim that they should be some kind of > widely-adopted standard, or that they are useful without a big grain > of salt. > > Hope that clears up my intent. There's nothing wrong with properly > labelled stuff. The list started by building on other sponsor guidelines, I've built it up over time and adapted it. Ben, to answer your statement: > Rather, it's best to see them as a coherent set of questions to *have > good answers to*, for every package that one prepares. Neil's > guidelines, and other similar checklists by other sponsors, are very > helpful to prompt me to think about my package from a critical > perspective, which is very difficult to achieve in isolation. In terms of packages which I am not actually sponsoring, the set isn't going to be particularly coherent and has not been written with any intent to create a generalised checklist for all packages. That reference, IMHO, is a combination of the New Maintainer Guide, The Developer's Reference and Debian Policy. Those are the authoritative guides. By all means use the page for your own work, but please don't make it into something it is not or recommend it for purposes that are beyond the scope of the actual document. It's a bit like normal software in Debian - offered in the hope it will be useful but without any warranty that it is universal or authoritative beyond my own sponsoring. Indeed, if any of my sponsoring requires a change in the page, I will update the page again. I really cannot support Ben's sweeping generalisation that my page is suitable for every package prepared for Debian. Please use my page and the pages created by other sponsors in the manner in which they were offered - as guidelines that are not necessarily binding unless you want to work with the person who wrote those particular guidelines. Yes, there are elements that can be useful to many packages in Debian but that's about the limit of what the page can achieve. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpChRl2plRaP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))
+ Adeodato Simó (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:09:31 +0200): > + Ben Finney (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:25:57 +1000): > > Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to *every* > > package. > Well, not even that, many of them are a pure matter of personal > preference, or apply directly only to him: Forgot to add, I completely get it's not Neil who's saying these guidelines should become some kind of standard, since he has never said they apply to anybody except his sponsoring. So, there's nothing wrong with him adding subjective criteria in *his* document, and was merely challenging the claim that they should be some kind of widely-adopted standard, or that they are useful without a big grain of salt. Hope that clears up my intent. There's nothing wrong with properly labelled stuff. -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))
+ Ben Finney (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:25:57 +1000): > Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to *every* > package. Well, not even that, many of them are a pure matter of personal preference, or apply directly only to him: 1. Use mentors.debian.net 2. Increment the package version 10. You should be intending to join the Debian project 12. I will not sponsor python, ruby, Java, KDE or mono packages 13. All communication by email only 16. The software you intend to package must be suitable for inclusion in main 17. I can't guarantee how quickly your upload will be made That's a 33% of his guidelines, FWIW. -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))
Wen-Yen Chuang writes: > I am new at deb packaging. I think Neil's guidelines [1] is good and > reasonable. > I am not an DD nor an DM. I have not start my NM process yet. > I am not an experienced programer. I only know a little C and shell > programing. > > Neil's guidelines is clear, simple, and helps new maintainers to keep > their packages good. I have found Neil's guidelines invaluable ever since I've been packaging, even though Neil and I have never even discussed the possibility of him becoming my sponsor. I'm glad to see them clearly laid out online and, even better, updated From time to time as his personal sponsoring policies adapt. > I do know some Debian official packages maintained by some DDs would > fail to meet Neil's guidelines. Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to *every* package. Rather, it's best to see them as a coherent set of questions to *have good answers to*, for every package that one prepares. Neil's guidelines, and other similar checklists by other sponsors, are very helpful to prompt me to think about my package from a critical perspective, which is very difficult to achieve in isolation. -- \ “Why, I'd horse-whip you if I had a horse.” —Groucho Marx | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpwbsbFJD3zx.pgp Description: PGP signature
