On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 12:07 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > Hey Neil, > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:40AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > Good, that's the kind of RFS I like to see - just one thing missing, > > this is an existing package: > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/ustr.html > > just a quick note (and question): He indicated that this package isn't > new, by using the "updated package" subject. Shouldn't this be suffice? I'd say not quite. (updated package) can refer to an ITP that has been partially reviewed, re-uploaded to mentors and is awaiting further review before the first upload to Debian. It's getting a bit like splitting hairs from here on but I suppose the full answer would be to use: RFS: $package (updated NEW package) RFS: $package (updated existing package) or (update for existing package) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part