On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:29:45AM +0100, Martin Meredith wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 10:19 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > > 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". > > > It depends on the definition of "package" etc. If I added a new binary > package, for example, to split off part of a package, then only that new > package is NEW, however, the package as a whole gets held in the NEW > queue. That's right and I like it this way. :) > I think, at a minimum, I'd like to see the wording changed to something > that states that it counts for any package that needs to go through NEW > rather than for wholly new packages The wiki says that one condition is for the package to be not NEW. Using upper-case characters reads to me that the NEW queue is meant which is technically described somewhere else. So, maybe it is not absolutely clear that there's is a difference between "new" and "NEW" and maybe this could be explained better but in general it's quite approriate if you have that in mind, I guess. It is not about the DM wiki page to describe in what technical circumstances a package is to be delivered to the NEW queue. Don't you agree? Cheers, Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature