On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> A community based approach could also provide a "number of open
> bugs" counter next to the download link of a package.
We can even do that automatically (and redirect the user to a bugzilla
query for the bugs).
> As a second
> thought, users could rate a packaging effort on how usable or
> popular a particular package is.
Thought about this, as well. It's on my todo list, but I don't think I'll
have the time to add this anytime soon. rhcontrib is not part of my
official work, and my spare time constantly approaches 0 between betas and
freezes for finals. ;)
> A restart of the Red Hat Contrib project should not end like the
> very first Red Hat Contrib server: hundreds of packages, many
> unmaintained ones,
That's exactly why I've decided to tie every package to bugzilla. ;)
> not in sync with the latest release of the distribution, and so on.
This is taken care of - we accept source RPMs only, and new releases will
automatically do a mass rebuild.
> It should not end as
> a place where to put arbitrary packages of questionable interest.
I tend to disagree about this particular one: There are a number of
packages that are very useful only to a very limited number of people
(think of apps supporting people with disabilities - the packages are of
no use to maybe 95% of our users, but they're vital to the remaining 5%),
and we do need a repository for those.
So what we need is, basically, both a place for people to work on packages
that are interesting to the majority of people, but also a collection of
packages that are of no use to most people.
If we're getting too many packages, we'll have to come up with a way to
provide people with what they're looking for - basically improving the
search feature a lot.
LLaP
bero
_______________________________________________
Seawolf-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
