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