Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:41:27PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > / Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  What about adding a
> > | new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to the wnpp?
> > 
> > Why not simply close the bug and give an explanation?
> 
> Because - when it really cannot be packaged and if the bug is archived -
> someone comes again with an ITP for that and someone has to explain him
> (or he does find out himself) that it cannot be packaged.

I think it's better as part of the web pages which somebody maintains
than bugs rather than having perpetually open unable-to-package bugs for
them. (We already have this! See
.)

In some sense, all the existing wnpp bugs are bugs in Debian, so "this
piece of software isn't packaged" is a valid wishlist bug, or "this
package is without a maintainer" is a valid normal bug. But "this
software cannot be packaged" is not our bug, it's just a statement of
fact. Therefore, I think the bug analogy would be overstretched for this
kind of thing.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi,

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:21:56 +, andy.grafha wrote:
> Is there any way of requesting the BTS to move a package from "Requested"
> to "Can't be packaged"? I was investigating packaging "VisualBoyAdvance" a
> gameboy advance emulator, but it looks like license problems will make it
> impossible to include in debian.

If upstream is unwilling to resolve the problems (did you talk to them?),
personally I'd set the bug's "upstream" and "wontfix" tags so that others
have a chance to see that the program is unpackageable.

Another way to handle this would be to just close the bug. Hmmm. Opinions?

-- 
Matthias

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> / Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  What about adding a
> | new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to the wnpp?
> 
> Why not simply close the bug and give an explanation?

Because - when it really cannot be packaged and if the bug is archived -
someone comes again with an ITP for that and someone has to explain him
(or he does find out himself) that it cannot be packaged.

Waste of time, no?

Regards,

Rene

-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpBZaF7OKLwi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:23:29PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:

>  ___
> / Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  What about adding a
> | new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to the wnpp?
> 
> Why not simply close the bug and give an explanation?

Because popular software which can't be packaged ends up being ITP'd month
after month and time is wasted on these discussions.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Arnaud Vandyck]

 ___
/ Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  What about adding a
| new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to the wnpp?

Why not simply close the bug and give an explanation?

-- Arnaud Vandyck @ work
   FingerPrint = 82F3 45D0 F1B2 D79E D0BE  5188 E2FC C566 EEB6 B4C2
 , .
 | Linux Copy Party le 26 avril 2003 au Val Benoît |
 | http://vbstefi60.fapse.ulg.ac.be/lcp/   |
 ` '


pgphPxJAa2JDU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Leo \"Costela\" Antunes]

I second that.

But maybe we still need a canonical list of problematic packages, and
the CBP status would only be aplicable to inform wannabe packagers that
there's an ongoing analysis on the "packagability" of that software.

On second thought, I'm not sure it would be worth it, but I like the
idea... (how unconclusive!)

Cheers

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:23, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi andy.grafham!
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > Is there any way of requesting the BTS to move a package from
> > "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"? I was investigating packaging
> > "VisualBoyAdvance" a gameboy advance emulator, but it looks like
> > license problems will make it impossible to include in debian.
> 
> AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  
> What about adding a new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to
> the wnpp?
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> ++
> | Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
> || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 
> fab7 |
> ++ 
-- 

 Leo Costela
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Key Fingerprint: 8AE6CDFF6535192FB5B659212262D36F7ADF9466
 "you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!"


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Moving packages from "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi andy.grafham!

You wrote:

> Is there any way of requesting the BTS to move a package from
> "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"? I was investigating packaging
> "VisualBoyAdvance" a gameboy advance emulator, but it looks like
> license problems will make it impossible to include in debian.

AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  
What about adding a new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to
the wnpp?

-- 
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++