On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:01:42 +0000 Lazarus Long <lazarus.long@bigfoot.com> wrote: > Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:41:14PM +0000, Lazarus Long wrote: > >> You are right, I delayed filling the ITP until I got an acceptable > >> script so much I ended up forgetting to do it. Fixed: ITP #514124 > > > > The point of an ITP is that other developers can respond to your intent > > *before* you potentially waste time on a package that is duplicate, > > unneccessary or otherwise not going to go into the archive. > > Thank you for your reply. > > In general your point is correct, but this is a native package, so > nobody else could be applying to package it. That is not the point. Developers respond to your intent according to similar packages that already exist, errors in the ITP itself, problems with name clashes and almost anything else that may come up. Every package needs an ITP, native doesn't make any difference. > Regarding if it's good > enough to go in the archive, that's one point of requesting sponsorship, > right? :) No. The ITP is separate - it gets to a wider audience. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpYvvasCCWBT.pgp
Description: PGP signature