Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: If you can't describe what the package is, you
> probably should not Intend To Package it."):
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:17:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> > Maybe adding a note stating 'this content is autogenerated and should
>> > be hand-reviewed', in all of the dh-make-*-enerated packages, would
>> > help?
>>
>> Especially when paired with an autoreject, yes.
>
> Maybe as well as a stick, a carrot or at least some words that might
> suggest useful things to wrote:
>
> [ delete as (in)applicable: This package is part of XXX system /
> used by XXX / needed as a build-dependency of XXX ]As well as that, one could suggest that people add a paragraph about why they wish the software to be packaged (as a comment that will not appear in the uploaded package) and/or something about themselves if they're new to creating packages -- It seems to me that they're more likely to get useful feedback that way. Also I suspect that some of the people creating recent ITPs are unaware that their efforts are going to be forwarded to debian-devel to be read by thousands, and will also be searchable in the BTS forever with their name on it (along with any comments provoked -- positive or negative). Some sort of warning to that effect might make devoting a little more effort seem worthwhile. BTW in the case of the node-* packages, I think they're being generated by 'npm2deb'. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
