On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:01:12PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-15 20:42]: > > IMHO the templates can be regarded as an inofficial standard; tests > > should not be weaker than them; > > Oh, they can be slightly weaker. Joerg's templates are good starting > point; it shouldn't be *much* less than that, but I have no problems > when the ELF questions are removed (I do that myself). > > > however, I don't think that a little freedom on the AM's side hurts. > > Yes, Joerg's templates are basically an orientation, but you can > certainly deviate from them. > > > > E.g. Martin Michlmayr said that he won't put my additional tasks > > (package correction, RC bug fixing, writing actual manpage for a > > program that does not already have one, and applicant-specific ones) > > into the official templates; however, he appreciates them. > > I like them, and wish all AMs would ask their applicants to fix RC > bugs because that's a practical test and actually helps Debian. But I > felt they don't fit in well with the quite rigid templates... most AMs > just use the template as it is, and I don't feel comfortable asking > applicants to fix RC bugs just in a template... it should be done on a > case per case basis. > > (Don't know if this was clear at all now...)
Oh, and our goal is of course to have a distribution so perfect that no RC-bugs goes unfixed more than a day or two... One can always dream, right? Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
