(replying after almost a week after being away; apologies for the time warp...)
Buchan Milne wrote: > John Keller wrote: > > Per �yvind Karlsen wrote: > > > >>* Fri Jul 25 2003 Per �yvind Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.9-2mdk > >> > >>- rebuild > > > > > > I know I'm speaking out of turn, but I thought I'd give a heads-up: > 0.10 was > > just released a bit ago. It's a bugfix/user interface tweak release. > It also > > includes some more translations and reference files for HTML and PHP. > > Hmmm, I think we need to add the policy for requesting updated packages > to the Wiki. I think that would be great. There are more exceptions than rules from what I've seen in my months lurking here. > I don't think Per Ovyind cares about the latest release or > not of a package, in some cases updating means fixing other things you > may know nothing about, or having to test more things, whereas (I > assume) he's just cleaning up specs and making sure they build. Yes, and it's my fault for not having more clear. I meant it as a general heads-up, and did it in reply to Per �yvind's e-mail so that my note showed up as part of a thread. I didn't mean to imply that I expected him to add a whole new package on top of the huge burst of packages he's recently rebuilt accomodate the rpm/lib changes. One thing that is apparent from the package updates is who packaged it (though that's not always accurate, since I notice some people don't update it with their info). But the package owner has to be discovered by using a tool (command-line or online). Would the package owner's information possibly be something that could be included in the CHPRM/Contrib RPM headers? It seems like it could be very useful, especially for cases like this when it's desireable to go to the source insetad of the list. > Maintainers get spammed weekly anyway, so usually there will be a reason > it has not been updated (maintainer too busy, other packages should be > updated first etc etc). This I'm all too aware of. However, I was not the first nor will I be the last to make a request on the cooker list. The reason that 0.9 is present is that I requested it on 19 Feb -- on the cooker list (and yes, I did ask at that time if there was a better channel for this kind of request). Personally, I place no stock in maintainers being spammed with updates as being a reson that packages get maintained. Either the maintainer has a desire (and I see very active ones, from the number of updates that come through) or they don't. If they don't, no amount of automated e-mail is going to get them to move. So where's the harm of a request from an individual? It at least brings the situation to light of someone else who may be interested taking over the maintenacnce of the package. > Maybe we should see if we can get gc to have rpmwatcho publish the > reports somewhere accessible, so non-maintainers can see this too? That could be a nice candidate for a new "stream" to try out separate mailing lists. While splitting cooker has pros and cons, and was a heated subject, maybe ancillary things like this would be nice to keep in separate lists instead of throwing them into the main list. - John
