From: Stipe Tolj <tolj@wapme-systems.de>
To: Robert Collins <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: no more package moratorium?
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BF44917.93F7AFAB@wapme-systems.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <049601c16d58$d8565250$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
> Nope. I don't think this is appropriate. cygwin-developers is for
> developers of cygwin1.dll. Last I heard, Linus has no input into what
> Redhat put into the (say) the RawHide distro, so why should the
> cygwin1.dll developers care what goes into 'cygwin the net
> distribution'.
>
> I think we should either get a consensus from all the package
> maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no objections,
> then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss until
> resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not
> cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by
> other package maintainers.
I agree with Robert here. A simple -1,0,+1 voting valid from all
current package maintainers should indicate the aprover if the package
is considered "good enough".
-1 for "no, I'm against <fact xy>"
0 for "I have no objections or do not care"
+1 for "yes, go ahead from my point of view"
This way we have a democrative way, but still without unnecessary
reglementations for the aprover. The aprover decides on the global
scope of the votings if the package should be within the official net
distro.
> Some sort of voting thing might be nice (mentioning to show I've thought
> about it) but for now it seems too hard for too little benefit. I do
> like the idea of a sponsor, so
yep, as proclaimed above.
> once a package is decided to be allowed in, if its the first package
> from the maintainer (ie a new maintainer) then an existing maintainer
> must sponsor the package, and vet package quality -
> textmode/patches/postinstall scripts etc.
good point -- package maintainers should be cycling in sponsoring for
new package maintainers. This makes the communication between package
maintainers more reliable and improves the quality of work.
> I think the process for that part should be something like
>
> sponsor (for new maintainers) or maintainer (2nd package or new version
> of existing) places the packages files at a URL.
> They tell someone from <list of maintainers with write access>.
> <someone> uploads to cygwin.com.
>
> If there is _any_ doubt about the package quality, upload it as
> experimental. Wait 3 weeks, and if there are no bugs reported, then edit
> setup.hint to make that new versiom current.
A package maintaining system (via the web site) would help here. I had
this in mind for some time. (see my thread on the file conflict
issues).
Stipe
tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG
Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf
Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299
E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-15 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-02 12:06 Gareth Pearce
2001-11-02 12:19 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jesper Eskilson
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj [this message]
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
[not found] ` <m3k7wr50fa.fsf@appel.lilypond.org>
2001-11-11 8:26 ` tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Markus Hoenicka
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jerome BENOIT
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
2001-11-11 8:26 ` no more package moratorium? Markus Hoenicka
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Stipe Tolj
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Gareth Pearce
2001-11-11 8:26 E
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BF44917.93F7AFAB@wapme-systems.de \
--to=tolj@wapme-systems.de \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
--cc=robert.collins@itdomain.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).