On 31-Jan-2017, Siddhesh Rane wrote: > I know Praveen who is a Debian packager mostly involved in > Javascript and nodejs. I'm trying to help him so he's gonna be the > sponsor
First, thank you for volunteering to help package JavaScript libraries in Debian. That is work which needs doing and I am glad to see it being done. Can you direct Praveen to this bug report? I think you may be getting poor advice. > Well the bug reporting system assigns a bug number pretty > immediately. The bug reporting system is automated, that's true. But the process of writing an ITP should *not* be automated, you need to fill in the parts which cannot be automatically determined. The package description is not something which can be automatically determined, and even using an automated tool you still need to write it considering the audience. > Besides the itp isn't the real work, the rfs is which does get > viewed by people so I though I would focus there That is not true, the ITP is definitely real work. You are announcing to the whole Debian Project your Intention To Package a new work in Debian. This is the opportunity for people to discuss the work's relevance and place in Debian. The description is essential to that, because it tells readers what your understanding of the package is. An ITP with a poorly-considered description is a strong sign that the package may not be suitable for Debian. So it's essential to get that right, *before* sending the ITP report. -- \ “If I had known what it would be like to have it all... I might | `\ have been willing to settle for less.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily | _o__) Tomlin | Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
