Subject: Re: no more package moratorium?
From: Stipe Tolj <[email-masked]>
To: Robert Collins <[email-masked]>
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:00:39 +0100

> 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

[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [email-masked]
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/