On 22:15 Sun 25 Dec , Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:06:29 +0100 > Xavier Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 15:39 Sat 24 Dec , Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:18:46 +0100 > > > Xavier Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Debian Edu Developpers can maintain both Debian and Debian-Edu > > > > applications. > > > > > > Please clarify: What packages (besides SUN Java and Opera for > > > obvious reasons) are Debian-Edu without being Debian? > > > > The best way is to have all packages in Debian, but as I know we have > > packages in skolelinux that aren't now in Debian. So we have Debian > > and "Debian-Edu" maintainer. > > In the future, I hope every package will be in Debian :) > > I know that distinction is true for SUN Java and (used to be for) Opera. > > I do not believe that is the general case. If so, then please clarify.
It's not in a general case. I know that Steffen is maintaining stuff around skolelinux. Maybe he can explain how he works and if he maintain packages that aren't directly in Debian. > > > > I think if a software will be used mainly with skolelinux the > > > > field should be something like Debian-Edu team as italc : > > > > Maintainer: Debian Edu Developers <[email protected]> > > > > > > What makes sense to me is that the developers growing an expertise > > > in "slicing" Debian into the sub-parts distributed as Skolelinux > > > focus on the knowledge specific to that slicing. > > > > > > I don't think it makes sense to bother *all* those same folks with C > > > ++ transitions, Python policy changes, different version control > > > systems, and and..., just because the software has an educational > > > use. > > > > > > Those interested in both infrastructural development of a CDD and > > > specific packaging of an educational piece of software can simply > > > join both teams - but when mixing then you make it more complex to > > > join and help out. > > > > Hmm, you are right, it's more complex to help but for big packages, we > > need to have more than 1 or 2 person to help, package, upgrade... > > > > > > But if it is a software which will be used both in Debian and > > > > Debian-edu and moreover if it's a small package, only one person > > > > should be in this field. > > > > > > There's nothing wrong in teams with only a sinlge person. The > > > difference between single-person teams and personal maintainance is > > > the difficulty for person number two to join later on. > > > > that's true. I know that some DD are working on to facilitate to > > maintain packages with more than 1 person and moreover they are > > working for enable non-DD to have a branch and could maintain > > software because some people have asked to maintain packages and they > > don't want to become DD. That's a real problem. > > > > Now the best and so the easier way is to have a single-person to > > maintain a package. > > I think you are confusing things a bit. What you describe above is > called co-maintained packages, and has been around for some time. > > It seems the thing you mention being worked on is > wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance which is an _extensions_ to > what already exist today. Oh, it's done right, it was a discussion I had with others DD and Raphael 6 months ago. Friendly, -- Xavier Oswald -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
