On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:03:28 -0400 mah@everybody.org (Mark A. Hershberger) wrote: > Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes: > > > Appears to be a new package, no ITP number - have you filed one? > > > > (Hint: you *must* have an ITP bug number for a new package. No ifs, no > > buts, *no* exceptions. Make sure you have ITP's for any of the other > > requests you made tonight that need them whilst you are filing this > > one.) > > I'm not sure why you are missing the ITPs. Because the bug numbers are not in the RFS. > If you can tell me what would make it easier for you to find the ITPs, > I'll be sure to do that for any future RFSs. > > Mark. 1. Please ensure that all relevant bug numbers are in the RFS. 2. Always consider adding the long description if there could be any reason that the short summary may be too short. 3. Treat the RFS as an all-in-one so that sponsors can decide whether to look further into the package. In short, extend and embellish on the RFS template because no template can cover all the elements necessary for all packages. You know the package, the sponsor does not - use the RFS to explain and engage with a potential sponsor. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpbrYkduouQE.pgp
Description: PGP signature