Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over
Christine Spang <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> hi Christopher,
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> The `mosh` you quote reads
>> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
>> This is something totaly different from
>> mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
> I propose that the ITP is renamed to mosh-scheme, or something else that
> the project finds appropriate. This is an easier solution than renaming
> mosh (the mobile shell) now that it's been uploaded. And, it's unclear
> that mosh (the scheme interpreter) would ever actually be uploaded
> anyway since, despite the ITP, months have passed without the package
> appearing or any new reports on its status.
There's a RFS from February
>> Additionally I find it highly inappropriate for someone to take a
>> package name with an open and active ITP bug  for some totaly unrelated
>> package bypassing the wnpp step and uploading to the archive.
> Please. I find it highly amusing that anyone would prioritize a
> dubiously active bug report over actual action.
> There is no policy that says one MUST file an ITP bug in order to make a
> package upload. I do apologize that I didn't check before making the
> upload and attempt to engage in a conversation with David and anyone who
> may have been following the ITP.
Read Policy 5.1 again
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”)
against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to create a new
package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of the
package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL
where it can be downloaded from.
Yes there's a *must*.
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer