[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Feeling ITP for binary [was Re: ITP: bat -- bat: A cat(1) clone with wings]

[Sylvestre Ledru]

On 29/08/2018 10:56, Paride Legovini wrote:
> Raju Devidas wrote on 29/08/2018:
>> On बुधवार 29 ऑग 2018 05:26 म.पू., Paride Legovini wrote:
>>> Raju Devidas wrote on 28/08/2018:
>>>> Package: wnpp
>>>> Severity: wishlist
>>>> Owner: Raju Devidas <rajudev at disroot.org> 
>>>>
>>>> * Package name    : bat
>>>>
>>>> There is an RFP for this (#907080)
>>>> I intend to maintain this package under Debian Rust Team. 
>>>
>>> The packing is actually already done (the very little Rust packages
>>> normally require). See:
>>>
>>> https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/tree/master/src/bat/
>>>
>>> but several dependencies are still missing
> 
>> Thanks for letting me know. If the RFP would have been retitled earlier
>> as an ITP, that would have saved me the trouble.
>> But I understand, things happen.
> 
> The fact is that we normally proceed without ITPs in the Rust team, the
> pace is quite faster than the Debian average. Also: the packaging is
> very thin (basically just metadata) and all hosted in a single
> repository (debcargo-conf), then debcargo (called by update.sh) builds
> the actual Debian package. So normally is it enough to look in
> debcargo-conf/src to see is a package is already being worked on. Even
> the concept of Maintainer is still very fluid.
We should start filling ITP for rust binary (not libs).

What do you think guys?

S