On 10:49 Fri 15 May , Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:13:25AM -0000, jawnsy-guest@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: > > Author: jawnsy-guest > > Date: Fri May 15 05:13:16 2009 > > New Revision: 35428 > > > > URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-perl/?sc=1&rev=35428 > > Log: > > Both dependencies are in NEW now, so dch -r. Note this module is still > > waiting for libdevel-findref-perl and libdevel-refcount-perl to be > > accepted, but they're waiting in NEW. > > I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent (okay, more conservative and > a bit more careful, yes, but still IMHO more prudent) to wait until > the packages are actually accepted, not just in NEW :) Just in case > they are rejected for some difficult-to-fix reason and it takes time > to resolve it. > > At least that's what I've gathered from the policy on the -mentors > list; most sponsors seem to frown upon maintainers submitting packages > that need other packages that are still not in the archive proper. > Of course, with the sponsors in our team and with the level of careful > checking and attention they give each package before uploading it > a rejection from NEW should be extremely rare - and here's a great > "thanks!" to the pkg-perl sponsors :) But still... well, I don't know, > I personally tend to wait until the dependencies are actually accepted > :) I have the same opinion that Gregor, licence issue is one of the major reason why packaged are rejected from NEW. Otherwise it's fine to upload to NEW if dependancies are in NEW too but following the good order to have dependancies top of the package that need them. My own policy is to reply to the ITP telling that the dependancies are in NEW. It's always good to have information ;) Greetings, -- ,''`. Xavier Oswald <xoswald@debian.org> : :' : GNU/LINUX Debian Developer `. `' GnuPG Key ID 0x88BBB51E `- 938D D715 6915 8860 9679 4A0C A430 C6AA 88BB B51E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature