On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
For example, I would be very reluctant to sponsor a first package of a
person that was a new library without any application using it,
whereas a interesting kde application might easier catch my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
For example, I would be very reluctant to sponsor a first package of a
person that was a new library without any application
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:11:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
For example, I would be very reluctant to sponsor a first package of a
person that was a new library without any application using it,
whereas a interesting kde application might easier catch
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
That's interesting, thank you for that perspective. What do you
propose, then, for a maintainer who wants to get a new package into
Debian, but that package requires one or more
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
That's interesting, thank you for that perspective. What do you
propose, then, for a maintainer who wants to get a new package into
Hi
Dne Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:42:38 +1000
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au napsal(a):
I obviously wasn't clear on this point: The library package is prepared
*first*, to provide functionality needed by the dependent package.
They're not ready for sponsorship together. What advice then?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:42:38PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
That's interesting, thank you for that perspective. What do you
propose, then, for a maintainer who wants to get a new package
Matthew Palmer mpal...@debian.org writes:
Make an RFS if you like, but don't get all bent out of shape and chuck a
hissy fit on d-mentors if nobody does anything about it (because it's a
library package -- hard to do right, and utterly pointless without an
application to go with it).
I think
Le jeudi 20 août 2009 à 09:01 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
I think part of the gap in understanding here may be that everyone is
assuming that “library package” necessarily means a C-language library
package. Does this qualitative “hard to do right” apply when the library
package is implemented
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:42:38PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
That's interesting, thank you for that perspective. What do you
propose, then, for a maintainer who wants to get a new
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
For example, I would be very reluctant to sponsor a first package of a
person that was a new library without any application using it,
whereas a interesting kde application might easier catch my eye.
That's interesting, thank you for that perspective.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:11:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
For example, I would be very reluctant to sponsor a first package of a
person that was a new library without any application using it,
whereas a interesting kde application might easier
2009/8/19 Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net:
I've had to do this with Perl modules once - I wanted to package
a particular module, but it had a chain of dependencies that were
not packaged yet. What I did was file a series of ITP bugs,
stating my intentions clearly - first for the target
13 matches
Mail list logo
