On Jan 30, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
At 20:29 -0800 29/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:I just had a peek over there, and there are indeed a small number of packages that don't seem to be getting acted upon at all (The oldest of them seems to be xkbsw). The vast majority, however, did get comments and are mostly awaiting revisions by the original submitters. Also, in light of the fact that around 1000 packages submission HAVE already been incorporated from the tracker, 100 open packages don't seem an unreasonable number to me..
I am working on a web page which will be an alternate index of the package submissions. This page will identify which packages are waiting for the submitter, and which ones are waiting for a fink developer.
That should be useful indeed, e.g. to Max who makes the rounds regularly to keep packages moving.
- To the extent that packages are not getting addressed, it's not really because all available committers are busy wrapping .app's, it's because they don't know enough about the packages.
I don't understand why the fink developer needs to understand how an application works. I would expect the fink developer to ensure that the package complies with the packaging policy, and compiles cleanly. After that it is up to fink users to tell the maintainer if the package does not work properly.
But
- That degrades the quality of the fink database (we don't vet packages by new maintainers to put them in their place, but because they might not yet know about all packaging subtleties (which we all forget sometimes) and because their work is of unknown quality).
- If the package doesn't work, at best it gets resubmitted, causing more work for the fink developer. At worst, the developer has to chase the maintainer to pester him/her for a fix.
- The question whether a package is "properly packaged" cannot always be cleanly separated from the question whether a package works, e.g., to know that a file belongs in %p/var not %p/lib, you have to run the program.
I recognize that the fink developers are volunteers, and they will work on whatever interests them. But I do find it a bit frustrating that a package should not make it into fink just because there is no developer who finds it interesting enough to look at. What about having a third tree, for untested packages.
What if a spammer commits a package there that turns machines into mail proxies?
This would be for packages that have been submitted, but not yet reviewed by a fink developer. Users would have to understand that there was absolutely no guarantee that a package from the untested tree wouldn't do nasty things to their fink distribution, or computer, etc.
That understanding would not stop them from blaming the fink developers, I fear.
Under what login did you submit packages and what packages of yours have gone unreviewed for an extended amount of time?
I submit under the login rv8. I have had fplan-nox waiting since 2003-12-24. It is a flight planning tool to be used for pilots to plan flights. See:
OK, that package has got itself a godfather now.
Matthias
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
