Hey, On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:52:31AM +0100, Martin Meredith wrote: > If a package contains a new binary package, or has a name change, for > example, it needs to go through NEW again. > > The point here is, is a DM allowed to upload a new package in this case, > or does a sponsor have to do it for them. A sponsor has to do that. No DM is allowed to introduce new binary packages, even if that's just because of a name change. This is what is meant by "package is not NEW". > I can understand that a DM has to have a completely NEW package > sponsored, or they'd just be a DD. But in the case of a new binary > package meaning that it needs to go through NEW, what is the case here. The case is simple. This sort of binary changes mean the package to go through the NEW queue which is not allowed for DMs. > I think that this needs to be clarified in the documentation either way, > but in the case where a DM needs to have a package sponsored for the > case where a package is NEW simply due to binary changes, I think this > should be thought about again. Well, I don't think so. Those changes are either quite simple or significant, depending on what the maintainer is going to do there. In the first case I'm pretty sure that the DD the DM has been working with until he finally uploaded the package with "DM-Allowed: Yes" would do the upload gratefully. In the second one I think this is just not a DM job. So, from my point of view there is no need of changing anything around this. IANADD, though. Cheers, Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature