On 12/15/2011 04:30 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:47:53PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: >> On 12/15/2011 01:24 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: >>>> The license is the typical "non-commercial" one. I spoke with >>>> Nick Patterson from upstream, a Debian user himself, who is happy >>>> with us redistributing their work. >>> Did he said that he will try to enhance the licensing issue? >> Rather the contrary. > Well, it is hard to tell what "the contrary" means to my question. > a) Did he said just nothing? > b) Did he said that is voting against a license change? > c) Did he said that there is less chance for a change? He wants to know when commercial entities use the package and when the software is sold to then decide case by case. Once I understood that, I did not ask for any change. >>>> The upload went to experimental. >>> Why? >> Because of the missing man pages mentioned below.s > Uhmmm, if any package with missing manpages would go to experimental > Debian would have a lot less packages in main - that's no reason at > all. Hm. We could have one page for all the programs, pointing to the documentation at least. >> Also, >> some gut feeling of mine wanted to wait for reactions from >> the build deamons. > I'm not sure whether build daemons are working on experimental at all. Ah, I have forgotten that flag. Otherwise they are. > IMHO an upload to experimental is simply hiding packages and I do not > like this at all if there are no strong reasons for this (like in the > ensembl case where you might crash your system (done that, been there) > when installing the package because of specific dependency only > available in experimental conflicting with other regular packages in > main.) I use experimental all the time (writing from a KDE 4.7.2 system). >> Also, I was not sure if some of the example scripts should >> possibly move to /usr/bin in a more abstract form, i.e. the way >> I use them locally. > So moving a package to experimental is keeping users away which should > test the package. > > Finally it creates additional work for ftpmaster once they are asked > to move the package from experimental to main. My perception of experimental is different. The package is not dangerous. But it is not ready for testing. I could live with unstable and a bug assigned to it to prevent its migration. >>>> There is quite some documentation to read through, but no man >>>> pages. And I do not have the time to fix that. Some good soul >>>> adding a "-h" option to the tools and perform a help2man would >>>> be much appreciated. This could be something for an eventual >>>> Code-in project, I think, anyway, IMHO the package should not >>>> go to main without them. >>> HINT, HINT, HINT for newcommers who wonder what contribution they >>> could provide: Use help2man to create some manpages. >> We should have a page with such educative time sinks and >> explicitly address the hidden talents on high schools with such. > We actually have such a page[1] but it is hard to maintain and as long > as there is no obvious sign that it is really attracting helpers I do > not mind maintaing it up to this detail of specific tasks single > packages.
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMedTodo > I just had a look. It is ok, basically. To avoid adding to much to it, should we have a page for every package that wants to communicate with the public? Then [1] could have a section "for school kids" and give references to those more detailed descriptions. Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
