* Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> [2003-05-26 20:30]:
> alfie@ist.org (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote on 26.05.03 in <2003-05-26_17.29.56@alfie.ist.org>:
>> Please, don't simply massfile ITPs without thinking on their impact and
>> without any deeper informations....
>
> Please don't assume someone jasn't thought about something just because
> you haven't been personally informed about every detail.
I am not quite sure why you think that you should inform me personally.
Though still my question holds, that you seem to have ignored. Recite:
| your other ITPs, too). Additional informations on what makes it more
| useful/better than libmailtools-perl in this special case wouldn't be
| wrong neither.
So, let me ask again: What makes it better/more useful than
libmailtools-perl?
See, it is nothing personal (you seem to take it that way), but
packages with similar functionality should be questioned, and if the
intended things can be done with either one there is no big need to
duplicate the work and increase the pool with it.
> As for the long descriptions, I really don't see what the use is in an
> ITP. The packages will of course have them.
A long description in an ITP would
a) reduce the amount of questions why this package should be in the
pool,
b) can get you suggestions for improvement of it before the package hits
the pool, and
c) doesn't let you seem strange by ignoring a template that requests it.
If you like to question c) feel free to discuss it, like e.g. with the
reportbug maintainers (they have valid reasons to include it, see a) and
b), I guess), but don't go and simply ignore it.
So long!
Alfie
--
Aber, der Aufwand, Linux zu installieren und vim zu lernen ist *IMMER*
geringer, als Outlook das Schreiben von vernünftigen Mails beizubringen. ;)
-- Jens Benecke
Attachment:
pgpkWA9noQGYC.pgp
Description: PGP signature