ITP moratorium still in effect?

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >Is the ITP moratorium declared in
> ><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html> still in effect?
> 
> Nope.  Daniel's back.  Sorry that I never made that clear.
> 
> I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
> distribution, however.
> 
> Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on
> these things.  It could have rules like "a package needs a simple
> majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion".  I'd envision seven
> people on the committee.  I have names in mind but the only two
> definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto
> power.
> 
> I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be
> included, remembering that we have a "software" web page at cygwin.com
> which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff
> for the cygwin release.  I think we have accepted a couple of packages
> here
> which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site.

Keep in mind that encouraging "unofficial" packages in this manner will:

1.  Result in more packages that aren't reviewed by anybody (e.g. Harold)
and hence don't meet necessary Cygwin requirements (esp. FHS).
2.  Ergo will result in messages to cygwin@ of the template: "<software
web-page package> totally screws up Cygwin".
3.  Ergo will raise CGF's blood pressure to dangerous levels.
4.  Ergo will result in long, unproductive cygwin@ threads trying to tell
the OP what one sentence could: "You're on your own with these packages".

I agree the "lets add everything" situation is problematic, but I don't
think encouraging people to use a method that has the smell of semi-support
is going to do anything but make matters worse.