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

Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over

Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph Egger <christoph@christoph-egger.org> writes:
> > Read Policy 5.1 again
> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still

But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
The turnaround time for packaging the average package is less than the
turnaround time in getting back a ITP bug number. Chances are very high
that ITP filing has wasted more time than it's ever saved in duplicated
work. It's also caused much stalling of legitimate work.

I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
copyright issue, and one for a package that had an independent
debianization not in the archive. Applying a little common sense to
filing ITP bugs will get you a long way toward realizing any possible

The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP
for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost
certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: