Re: RFS(2): autoreply - A safe, rate-limited auto-responder
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 10:14, Blars Blarson wrote:
> I do think that it should be objectivly compared with vacation before
> Debian decides to add it to to their archives.
>
> At least this sounds like it won't be one of the poorly done vacation
> clones that does mailbombs.
I have a question. Is "should not be too similar to an
existing package" a criteria for admission to Debian?
There seems to be a whole pile of counter examples:
- god knows how many shells, most backward compatible with sh.
- kde, gnome
- editors, eg several implementations of vi
- www browsers
- mail servers
- mail clients
- card games
- web servers
In fact, I had privately come to the conclusion that duplicating
existing functionality ranked well below (if indeed it ranked at
all), criteria like licences, quality of code, quality of upstream
support, quality of documentation, and quality of the Debian
packaging. Is this wrong?
Reply to: