Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:40:53AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
>
> > Hmmm I was under the impression that for a package to be accepted it needed
> > a) - someone to check it for packaging.
> > b) - at least 3 votes saying that it is desired to be seen in the 
> > distribution.
> >
> > which so long as person in a) is competant - seems fine to me.
>
> Ok, that's no. 2 and other packages are still missing the pro votes.
> I could step in and be no. 3 but...
I still think we should keep it at 2, unless more activity 
is seen.

> ...where are all the subscribers of this list?  How should we ever
> get enough positive votes for a package if nobody cares?  I always
> see the same names if it comes to vote for a package and I see
> always the same (less) names if it comes to reviewing a package.
>
> The Cygwin net distro isn't sort of a one man show, it's a community
> effort.  It's not Chris and me who are the responsible people for
> reviewing a package and we are not the only people with the right 
> to upload packages.
AMEN!

> Please note, *all* maintainers are welcome to give his/her voice for
> a new package.
I was getting worried that people thought I was always 
voting yes for a package, so I tried cut back a little :-(.

> And by all means I think a positive vote should be combined with at
> least *some* reviewing of a package.
Agreed, but I hope that more then just the usual people are 
expected to do this...

> I failed to check this in the past sometimes but I will not upload
> a package with less than three positive votes in future.
Please, this is rediculous.  It's hard enough to get people 
interested enough to give 2 votes.

> Outstanding packages:
>
>     procps  (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me)
I voted for this one, after reviewing it.

>     ELFIO   (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas)
>     doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes)
Again, I voted for it, but with the conditions that it be 
cleaned up a bit.

>     astyle  (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth)
Haven't had a chance to check it out.

I'd like to echo Corinna's point in that the apathy for new 
packages is disgraceful.  If someone has taken the time to 
put a package together, the least you can do is check it 
out.  Even if you don't, then just say so, but IMHO, silent 
vetos are unacceptable.

Cheers,
Nicholas