Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over
Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Christoph Egger <firstname.lastname@example.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 agree with you that filing an ITP for a package that you can just
upload is just pointless busy work. But aparently you should still do it
to publicize that your package now exists.
> 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
But this goes to far. ITP specifically exists to state that you are
working on the package so that others can contact you before they work
on the same thing. And they make the most sense when the packaging is
going to take a while.
Simply ignoring the ITP or hijacking the ITP is just rude.
There might be a good reason why the ITP is staled, like your own
example with copyright issues. What would you say if someone else just
ignored your ITP and uploaded the package without clearing up the
copyright issues or even uploading a different package hijacking your
package name? When you have to resolve legal issues with upstream a
delay of a month or two is nothing.