Warren Togami wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote about powernowd:
> make a mistake with such a small package. If, however, you'd be happy
> when
> somone compared the source tarball MD5 with the upstream release, that
> might help. Afterall, in the source you're listed as contributor.
>
Yes, and that is why I suggested the "Source Audit Clause" which would
make it possible to publish this and other cases where nobody else cares
enough to look at it.
This seems like a good proposal to me.
Just a remark from previous discussions.
I think if there aren't many people interested to do QA on a package it
isn't because there isn't any need or interest for the package in
general. Quite often I read something on the web about a program and
then try to find an rpm for it. Or I need some rpm to get something else
compiled. And by definition there are less packagers then users out there.
So to conclude I think that if there is no interest in doing QA does not
really mean that there is no interest in the package.
Jaap