On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:25:53 -0600 Nathan Handler <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request >> things get packaged, to give packagers an idea what people would like to >> see, and to make work in progress visible to avoid duplication. >> >> It would be a shame to not upload a package due to lack of filling out some >> form. Needs packaging bus are a good idea, but to block anything due to >> lack of one puts form over function. Please leave this one out. > >I completely agree with you Scott. I do not feel that creating and >closing a needs-packaging bug for a package you intend to package >yourself serves any significant purpose. However, many wiki pages list >a needs-packaging bug as a requirement for a new package. I am not >sure if this requirement is an official requirement, but it is listed >in enough wiki pages that it is treated as such. In my experience, if >the only thing missing in a package is the closing of a >needs-packaging bug, the package is either uploaded as-is, or the MOTU >modifies the package to close the bug. However, I do not see anything >wrong (if a needs-packaging bug is a real requirement) with having an >automated check of the package when it is first uploaded that checks >to see if it closes a needs-packaging bug. Since it happens right when >the package is uploaded, the uploader can easily make the change. I >feel this is very different than asking the uploader to close a >needs-packaging bug after several months of no comments, when the rest >of the package is good. >
I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected or knocked into some kind of needs work state as a result. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
