[moving to Debian Med user list to get a more fitting audience] Hi Dmitry,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:44:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > Hi team, > > I had a look at "openmolar" and found it somewhat usable. Latest beta version > was released just 3 months ago so I packaged it and created repository at > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/openmolar.git :-) You have probably seen my comment on your commit... > I failed to re-use (i.e. unarchive/reopen) old ITP #564285 so perhaps a new > ITP is to be filed. I guess it does not really matter. For me "closing" this archived bug in the changelog is fine. Finally the ITP is to make sure that people are not doing a competing packaging effort and I do not assume that currently somebody else is working on openmolar in parallel. > Andreas, how would you like to proceed? Do you want "openmolar" in > experimental or in unstable? Thanks. If you regard it "usable" unstable is fine. You might add a warning in the long description about "no guarantee that the package is doing anything useful / expect a loss of all your data / blabla" or whatever. I'd also add a verbose README.Debian to clarify the status of the package. I think the classification experimental / unstable is more from a Debian point of view to get some technical (library dependency) stuff tested in a sandbox. If users might simply miss the existance of openmolar because it is hidden in experimental which is not in their sources.list it is like "not packaged" which is not really in the interest of our users. People using software declared as *beta* should know what they are doing and we are just taking over the job of simplifying their work to install the software ... and for sure we try to make it as good as possible - but not better. Thanks for working on this Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
