I'd lke to see the ITP be MUST but the ITP template be SHOULD.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120415221713.GA24051@debian
People embarking on packaging a bit of software are also supposed to
contact the upstream author. When one contacts the upstream author
and they respond quickly and say they'd love to have the software
packaged and they don't know of anyone else doing so, an ITP can seem
(depending on the
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
People embarking on packaging a bit of software are also supposed to
contact the upstream author. When one contacts the upstream author
and they respond quickly and say they'd love to have the software
packaged and they don't know
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 17:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Might be best to both at once (using X-Debbugs-CC)?
That's fine if the upstream author is sufficiently aware of Debian
processes, but if not then the ITP template is rather an impersonal way
to make contact.
Despite licences, it's polite to
Le Wednesday 28 March 2012 07:31:19, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
The best way to become hyper-efficient is to avoid this kind of
overhead, automate everything, and be prepared to fail quickly and
iterate.
What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
But are they always usefull? Does a package that is ready for upload
already need an ITP? That is the question.
The point of an ITP is that it should be sent before starting the
packaging. If the package is already done then ... well
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jcduba...@free.fr writes:
What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
debian/control and send the ITP? I can write that!
Yes please.
The Perl group already has a script that does this:
+++ Neil Williams [2012-03-26 09:17 +0100]:
Therefore packaging takes no time at all, it is always fully complete
before the code itself is even worth evaluating as useful to Debian.
The packaging is part of my test harness.
You are only looking at this from the upstream's point of view. Most
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
If an ITP remains open without comment for
more than a month, the chances that there will ever be an upload to
close it are close to zero.
That may be true in an 'averages' sense, but there are old open ITPs
with a lot of work
Wookey woo...@wookware.org writes:
+++ Neil Williams [2012-03-26 09:17 +0100]:
Therefore packaging takes no time at all, it is always fully complete
before the code itself is even worth evaluating as useful to Debian.
The packaging is part of my test harness.
You are only looking at this
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jcduba...@free.fr writes:
What about a dev. script that would be run in debian/ and would parse
debian/control and send the ITP? I can write that!
The Perl group already has a script that does this: examples/get-itp
in git.debian.org:/git/pkg-perl/scripts.git. I don't
Le Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:46:21PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
But, writing an ITP requires looking up most of the control file data,
and requires researching the copyright too.
Hi all,
I have sent ITPs containing a copy of the control and copyright files instead
of the proposed layout, and
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:06:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
e) useful to prevent a duplicate work.
Pointless if the package is uploaded the moment the BTS responds with
the bug number for the ITP, which was the hypotetical.
That was
Jon Dowland wrote:
That was Joey's hypothetical, iirc, and I don't really agree with his
supposition that initial packaging is such quick work that the ITP
delay is significant.
The typical package is fairly trivial to create. Often the rules file
doesn't need modifications anymore, so unless
On 28/03/2012 00:46, Joey Hess wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
That was Joey's hypothetical, iirc, and I don't really agree with his
supposition that initial packaging is such quick work that the ITP
delay is significant.
The typical package is fairly trivial to create. Often the rules file
I disagree almost completely.
On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of developers, which is:
a) useful for the ITP
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org wrote:
On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a
[ sorry for duplicate, Neil, pressed the wrong button ]
On 2012-03-26 09:17, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a hundreds
Hi.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:17:53AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
b) useful for the Debian project since experienced people may
immediately point that there are/there were some problems which
prevented the package to be added before or made the package
disappear from Debian
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
I disagree almost completely.
On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a hundreds
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
[ sorry for duplicate, Neil, pressed the wrong button ]
On 2012-03-26 09:17, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:55:35 +0300
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy.
21 matches
Mail list logo
