Bug#714207: a cleaner package
I have uploaded a more lintian-clean package to mentors.d.o: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ksig. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAA77j2C3nkUugLG_8zqMGHg1g0RBX6jqtfke=mqb5umxxsm...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#632450: ITP: pmatch -- Duplicate finder and removal tool.
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 08:35 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote: > I don't think we need another tool for this. Maybe it's better than them in some way (not necessarily overall), which in my books would make it good enough, meaning *we need another tool for this*. > And I don't think such basic tools should be written in a scripting > language. If this isn't a joke, it's a real bad reason. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1309744356.25604.21.camel@debian
Bug#632450: ITP: pmatch -- Duplicate finder and removal tool.
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 13:02 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote: > Ok, I didn't see that this ITP already had a discussion. However there are > three minor and subjective issues that I have with this ITP: > > - It's not really in the spirit of Open Source of Free Software to start a > new > project, if there already are a douzen projects in the same area. If none of > them fits your needs perfectly there should be at least one that could be > extended to your needs instead of starting from scratch. Many tools (perhaps most FLOSS) start off as toy projects, with the author not expecting to go far with them. And then they get to the point where they actually start being useful, even being better than existing ones. In such a case, you don't really want it thrown away or kept private right? Imagine that there isn't much motivation (e.g. wrong language, ugly code, not enough time, too boring) to port back the features to the older tool. > - It's always better if somebody else beside the upstream author who also > wants a package to be in Debian. In that case there's proof that the package > is at least important for a second person. What of cases where the package would get wider usage simply for being available in Debian? I'm not saying all trash should be accepted, I'm just saying that if, for example, one's own project is their first real exposure to technical Debian work, why not have them start with what they want the most for now... package their project for Debian? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1309743962.25604.15.camel@debian
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:00 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On 05/06/2011 10:49 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > What's up with the hate? It's always convenient to have a package in > > Debian, instead of hunting for it upstream. If it rots in Debian, then > > it can easily be removed again (or left in Unstable). > > Wrong. Every additional package costs the whole Debian project in > numerous ways. That's why we have these discussions up front on all > ITPs, so objections can be voiced. Q: How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? A: How about zero? Not exactly helpful. That was before discussing if the guy filling the ITP mentioned his readiness to respond to any RC bugs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304694881.20397.7.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 09:11 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, May 06, 2011 08:56:21 AM Chris Warburton wrote: > > Programming Lang: PHP > > Description : ocPortal is a Content Management System for building > > and maintaining a dynamic website > > How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? It's not kool that you didn't even ask about how good it is. Maybe it's better than whatever exists in Debian currently, have you checked? My point is your question isn't helpful. It smacks of flaming. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304695430.20397.10.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:24 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On 05/06/2011 12:14 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > Q: How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? > > A: How about zero? > > > > Not exactly helpful. > > When developers are passionately opposed to a particular technology (and > not without reason here, I think,) they can be a bit blunt in expressing > it. The list of these goes on and on ... and while I certainly would be > more polite myself about expressing reservations about adding any more, > I'm not going to fault others for expressing their dissent. The way you > expressed your support seemed to me to gloss over the real cost of > adding a new package to the archive without any coherent argument as to > why this particular one was going to be no trouble at all (and/or worth > the trouble because it's so special). Strange that you read 'support' into my responses. Actually I have never even heard of the proposed package, but that's not the point. I even mentioned that if the package sucketh (if the guy proposing it proves unreliable), then it can either remain in Unstable or be removed. You don't just blatantly oppose Debian inclusion without mentioning why. The great Josselin Mouette (yes, I really respect this guy for his tireless GNOME maintenance) just did that, and the rest of us are supposed to magically possess the history of PHP in Debian, and laugh it off. And no, you should fault others for expressing their dissent in this unproductive manner. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304699966.20397.23.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:29 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, May 06, 2011 11:23:50 AM Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 09:11 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Friday, May 06, 2011 08:56:21 AM Chris Warburton wrote: > > > > Programming Lang: PHP > > > > Description : ocPortal is a Content Management System for > > > > building > > > > > > > > and maintaining a dynamic website > > > > > > How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? > > > > It's not kool that you didn't even ask about how good it is. Maybe it's > > better than whatever exists in Debian currently, have you checked? My > > point is your question isn't helpful. It smacks of flaming. > > The question I should have asked is what is it's security record like. This > is an area that's rife with applications that have 'poor' security records. > Adding more to that pile would be an unfortunate burden on the security team. > > That's probably the most significant of the project wide costs adding a > package > like this brings with it. Thanks for putting your objection in a more readable/friendly form. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304697006.20397.12.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 20:03 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Friday 06 May 2011 19:39:26 Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:24 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > > On 05/06/2011 12:14 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > > > Q: How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? > > > > A: How about zero? > > > > > > > > Not exactly helpful. > > > > > > When developers are passionately opposed to a particular technology (and > > > not without reason here, I think,) they can be a bit blunt in expressing > > > it. The list of these goes on and on ... and while I certainly would be > > > more polite myself about expressing reservations about adding any more, > > > I'm not going to fault others for expressing their dissent. The way you > > > expressed your support seemed to me to gloss over the real cost of > > > adding a new package to the archive without any coherent argument as to > > > why this particular one was going to be no trouble at all (and/or worth > > > the trouble because it's so special). > > > > Strange that you read 'support' into my responses. Actually I have never > > even heard of the proposed package, but that's not the point. I even > > mentioned that if the package sucketh (if the guy proposing it proves > > unreliable), then it can either remain in Unstable or be removed. > > Upload to 'unstable' and see how it goes could be quite suboptimal tactics > most of the time. I'm not talking about that particular package, but not > every > package which flies in the free software skies deserves to be in Debian > archive > in my own opinion. Inclusions costs human time. I am not opposed to this. But again, that was not the point. Point was automatic 'should not be in Debian' without giving reasons. And if maintainer is willing to be on top of things, what extra work is there for anyone, except those handling NEW? > > You don't just blatantly oppose Debian inclusion without mentioning why. > > The great Josselin Mouette (yes, I really respect this guy for his > > tireless GNOME maintenance) just did that, and the rest of us are > > supposed to magically possess the history of PHP in Debian, and laugh it > > off. > > > > And no, you should fault others for expressing their dissent in this > > unproductive manner. > > Well, maybe if you look at that from a different angle, you can find it > productive as in: don't spend your time packaging that particular one, as > chances are very low for upload. I don't understand what you are saying here. My point was the manner in which the response was made. I used the word 'productive' because the guy wasn't saying why he was objecting to this particular package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304703032.20397.27.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 15:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 09:11 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > On Friday, May 06, 2011 08:56:21 AM Chris Warburton wrote: > > > Programming Lang: PHP > > > Description : ocPortal is a Content Management System for building > > > and maintaining a dynamic website > > > > How many content management systems written in php does Debian need? > > How about zero? What's up with the hate? It's always convenient to have a package in Debian, instead of hunting for it upstream. If it rots in Debian, then it can easily be removed again (or left in Unstable). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304689785.20397.1.camel@debian.tauspace.local
Bug#373966: ITP: qonk -- Small build-and-conquer strategy game with very simple rules
On 6/16/06, Martin Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Martin Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: qonk Version : 0.0.2beta1 Upstream Author : Anthony Liekens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://anthony.liekens.net/index.php/Computers/Qonk * License : GPL Programming Lang: C++, C Description : Small build-and-conquer strategy game with very simple rules It's been a while. What happened? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#387110: new upstream available, please package for Etch
Here's the link: http://www.gnome.org/~jamiemcc/tracker/tracker-0.5.2.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#374088: ITP: openmovieeditor -- a simple non-linear video editor
On 6/17/06, Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: openmovieeditor Version : 0.0.20060326 Upstream Author : Richard Spindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://propirate.net/oracle/zipfiles/ * License : GPL Description : a simple non-linear video editor Open Movie Editor is designed to be a simple tool, that provides basic movie making capabilities. It aims to be powerful enough for the amateur movie artist, yet easy to use. What's the status on this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
