> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >Is the ITP moratorium declared in > ><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html> still in effect? > > Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. > > I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the > distribution, however. > > Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on > these things. It could have rules like "a package needs a simple > majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion". I'd envision seven > people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two > definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto > power. > > I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be > included, remembering that we have a "software" web page at cygwin.com > which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff > for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages > here > which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site.
Keep in mind that encouraging "unofficial" packages in this manner will: 1. Result in more packages that aren't reviewed by anybody (e.g. Harold) and hence don't meet necessary Cygwin requirements (esp. FHS). 2. Ergo will result in messages to cygwin@ of the template: "<software web-page package> totally screws up Cygwin". 3. Ergo will raise CGF's blood pressure to dangerous levels. 4. Ergo will result in long, unproductive cygwin@ threads trying to tell the OP what one sentence could: "You're on your own with these packages". I agree the "lets add everything" situation is problematic, but I don't think encouraging people to use a method that has the smell of semi-support is going to do anything but make matters worse.
