[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Maintainer conditionals



On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:20 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> 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?

Oh, I agree, but it did raise the question for me last night (I had it
sponsored anyway)

Might the best solution be linking the word NEW to

http://wiki.debian.org/NewQueue

which would clarify things without needing to change the wording	

> Cheers,
> Hauke

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: