[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#265762: ITP: tpop3d -- tpop3d is a fast, extensible, secure UNIX POP3 server

On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 20:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> > Anyhow, if people don't add new software to Debian, no matter how many
> > programs of the same type there allready exist, how should Debian renew
> > itself ?
> Exactly, but that presupposes that the new packages are better than the
> old ones ... which is exactly what the question is about: _Is_ the new
> package better than any/all of the old ones, and why? You can't get an
> answer to that question if people aren't allowed to ask it.
> It's far easier to sort this out before a package enters Debian than
> sometime afterwards. Additional hint: There's a reason why ITPs are
> forwarded to d-d.

I've seen this more than often, that even though there is a description of the features etc.
of the new package, the ITP submitter is being asked, if that package now really is
necessary and that's the thing I think is where it goes wrong.

If it wasn't necessary (out of the point of view from the ITP submitter), he would not
have submitted the ITP in the first place.

Secondary, if we now need to rectify, when submitting a package, that has similar purpose
to others in Debian allready, then the ITP process maybe should get improved to be able to
provide such information.

Surely there is a reason, why ITPs are send to d-d, i just find criticizing an ITP (even though not 
personally aimed at the ITP submitter) highly discouraging. Especially if it is mostly about the fact
that Debian is getting bloated and the release time increases due to long standing, non fixed RC bugs
in other packages. 

I don't have a problem with the question to rectify for an package. I have a problem with the reasoning 
that was used in this case. I can understand Andreas stand-point, but he not should take that as argumentation
for asking to rectify for an ITP. 

Just my 0.02c

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen

Reply to: