Re: usefulness of ITPs (Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over)
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 17:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Might be best to both at once (using X-Debbugs-CC)?
That's fine if the upstream author is sufficiently aware of Debian
processes, but if not then the ITP template is rather an impersonal way
to make contact.
Despite licences, it's polite to start by asking the author if they're
happy about this version of the software being packaged at this time.
Often there are also a few specific questions to politely raise (e.g. if
they would mind using a configurable prefix rather than hard-coding
/opt/arbitraryname/ on every second line, or if the files in the warez/
subdirectory are really under the overall GPL licence). It's more
friendly to ask these directly to the upstream maintainer (this can be
CCd to the ITP), rather than in a CC of a message somewhere else.
(I'm slightly torn between our usual openness and the benefits of CCing
all such questions to the ITP, versus the potential unfairness of
incriminating upstream by picky licensing questions -- in those cases it
may be better to only CC the ITP once a positive solution is found.)