Andreas Barth wrote: > * Thomas Viehmann (tv@beamnet.de) [030705 09:35]: > >>Marc Haber wrote: >> >>>>Well that's the purpose of ITP-bugs against wnpp I think, because >>>>they are CC'd to debian-devel for public review. >>>Please show me a single ITP bug number where ftpmaster has said "this >>>package will not go into the archive, I will reject it on upload". >>There's numerous ITPs where e.g. licensing (seems to be a main issue with >>ftpmaster) has been discussed (the last I recall is #199874 dated 2003-07-03). > Andreas Tille, who critized the license in #199874 is according to > http://www.debian.org/intro/organization not ftpmaster. So ... >>If you're too cool to do proper ITPs then don't complain about the debian >>processing for new packages not working for you. > ... is not right. The point is that the public review of ITPs (which is part of the process of submitting a new package) seems cover most of the concerns that may cause rejection by ftpmaster (which is the final part of a new packages' way to debian). At least that's my impression of the way this is supposed to work. What I'm saying is that basically the discussion on devel would have addressed the limited merit alledged by ftpmaster. Marc's complaint (or at least one of the more clear items he complained about) was that he received ftpmasters feedback after his work is done. Had he ITPd (properly), he might have been told before. So why is the recommendation against skipping the ITP to aviod problems in ftpmaster review "not right"? Cheers T.
Attachment:
pgp4qnMovf8es.pgp
Description: PGP signature