So please: make some suggestions how such guidelines should look like, post it to the ML for discussion, underpin your suggestions with arguments. Just don't fling things like "They should improve package-quality!" around. It's way uncool.
To give my own smelly opinion: the packages are working perfectly. They are streamlined, they are up-to-date and if I don't like them I can usually fix things via makepkg or an entry to the bugtracker. Arch is rolling-release and bleeding-edge. If you don't like that: use Debian.
]]>lets take nano as an example. a few weeks ago it shipped with the default nanorc i think which is included in the sources. in the latest version it ships with a _completely_ different nanorc with code highlighting for a few "languages" and a couple of other options enabled. and i don't think thats an improvement.
]]>This should improve the overall package quality
to me, there's nothing to improve. the package quality is much higher than many distros out there, and at least on par with the better ones.
besides, as an example (but many projects suffered the same) IMHO nothing has hurt gentoo more than QA introduced for the just sake of it.
remember, 'best' is the worst enemy of 'good'
]]>i was wondering if there is something like QA or package policies to ensure that packages fulfill certain requirements.
This should improve the overall package quality and help devs when creating packages.
I think thats very important since the number of packages is growing everyday; some packages are pre-configured, some are not,
some ship documentation, others don't, some are tweaked and patched, others are shipped unpatched ... and with a policy or at least guidelines this hilly package landscape could be evened.
cheers
]]>