Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages

2009-04-28 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ Ben Finney (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:19:33 +1000): > Neil Williams writes: > > I really cannot support Ben's sweeping generalisation that my page is > > suitable for every package prepared for Debian. > Er, that's not what I stated. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite in > another message. Just a

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages

2009-04-28 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Neil Williams wrote: > Brief, to the point and clear. I think I'll add that to my list of > "other sponsor requirements". > > http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#sponsors lwall hasn't moved his sponsoring page to the new people.d.o, you might want to link to oldp

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages

2009-04-28 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:43:17 +0200 Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > PS I would love to see tags that would allow me to give higher > priority to some RFS mails (like: [Python] in Subject or > "X-debexpo-lang: Python" in mails generated by debexpo) and discard > some others (like Perl or JAVA ones - I alr

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))

2009-04-28 Thread Neil Williams
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

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages

2009-04-28 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
[Adeodato Simó, 2009-04-28] > + 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 pers

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages

2009-04-28 Thread Ben Finney
Neil Williams writes: > I really cannot support Ben's sweeping generalisation that my page is > suitable for every package prepared for Debian. Er, that's not what I stated. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite in another message. What I'm saying here is: > > Rather, it's best to see them as a

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))

2009-04-28 Thread Neil Williams
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 complet

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))

2009-04-28 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ 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

Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))

2009-04-28 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ 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

Criteria for sponsoring packages (was: RFS: ripit (updated package))

2009-04-27 Thread Ben Finney
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,