Re: ITPers should have Sponsors
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: ITPers should have Sponsors
- From: Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at>
- Date: 03 Jul 2000 18:04:59 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87vgynurmc.fsf@hoss.orcus.priv.at>
- In-reply-to: Hamish Moffatt's message of "Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:01:37 +1000"
- References: <20000626093354.A21741@debian.org> <20000626223227.A25708@Nightbird.TZoNE.ORG> <200006271141.GAA01191@portagod.netgod.net> <200006272106.OAA12902@earth.laney.edu> <20000628013254.B3343@ameise.cosy.sbg.ac.at> <20000628134936.A1568@aeon.dhis.net> <87em5fscmd.fsf@hoss.orcus.priv.at> <20000701110137.B24290@silly.cloud.net.au>
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> IMHO, an ITP is also a promise to upload the package to the official
> Debian archive within a reasonable period. Can a non-maintainer
> make that promise?
No. But yours is only one view of the ITP mechanism. I can't seem to
find an official Debian stance on this.
IMHO, posting an ITP for a package that you only intend to distribute
via a private aptable repository (for example, because it can't be
distributed by Debian) is valid.
--
Robbe
Reply to: