Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [honouring m-f-t] > >> > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent >> > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs. >> If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be >> mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy. > > Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining > libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the > archive will also encourage people to join NM).
I also wouldn't recommend an explicit policy here, and the reason why is that I'm thinking about teams. For example, the texlive-bin package contains one library and one libdevel package, but development doesn't actually take place there, it's very stable (in the sense "nothing happens", not "everything is fine"). I would be really happy if we could give some non-DDs in our team upload rights for our packages. I trust they would do uploads after the necessary checking, and restrict themselves to only upload changes which have been discussed or are obviously needed. It would be a pity if these people were able to upload texlive-base, but not texlive-bin because of a never-changing library in it. Other teams might face less extreme situations, but I think it's up to the team to decide which DM get Uploader status in which packages. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
