Bug#126901: acknowledged by developer (Freedicts)
>> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> Because the old ITP seemed irrelevant. Consider this case: what if
> somebody proposed to package libxpm 4 months ago, and today I propose
> to package XFree86 v4, which includes libxpm already. Am I really
> proposing the same thing? I think not.
That's ok, but I think Manoj's point was that if you are issuing an ITP
for a superset of an existing ITP, basic courtesy dictates you have to
contact the submitter of the original ITP and tell him about your
intentions. Whether or not you *think* the other person is not doing
anything about his ITP is irrelevant. If you try to contact him, and
allow him some reasonable ammount of time to answer, and no answer
comes back, well, his problem. In the meantime you can continue with
your work.
This is, afterall, why WNPP exists: to coordinate the intentions of a
few hundred persons.
But all of this was simply a mistake. There's no reason for anyone to
take it personally.
--
Marcelo | "Go ahead, bake my quiche"
mmagallo@debian.org | -- Magrat instructs the castle cook
| (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: