Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"):
> On 17-11-17 20:35, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Why are such a people a disgrace? So long as they do not refuse the
> > requests of people with more time on their hands to adopt the package,
> > aren't they just doing what they can, which is strictly better than the
> > package receiving no work at all?
> Not if this is the intended way of maintaining the package the moment
> the ITP is filed. Than Debian is most often better off without the
> package IMHO.
As someone who seems to constantly be looking for software to do
things that everyone else evidently seems to think obscure, I don't
I would much rather have a minimally maintained package, from Debian,
in my stable release, than have to roll my own. This is particularly
true if I don't know yet whether the thing is what I want. Trying
something out from "apt-get" in stretch is a lot less work and a lot
less risky than git cloning some random url and then blundering about
trying to get the thing going.
I prefer this so much that in some cases I have considered packaging
the thing myself and becoming one of these "disgrace" maintainers that
Adrian is complaining about.
If I find some undermaintained package in Debian, it nearly always
works well enough to solve my problem. And if it doesn't I have a
uniform way to find the source, somewhere to send my packaging bug
report, and the opportunity to NMU it if I discover something
Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.