[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote on 02.06.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> See, it is nothing personal (you seem to take it that way), but > packages with similar functionality should be questioned, and if the Says who? I reject that assertion. > A long description in an ITP would > a) reduce the amount of questions why this package should be in the > pool, Ignoring these seems entirely proper. The *only* point to an ITP is avoiding collisions. > b) can get you suggestions for improvement of it before the package hits > the pool, and No need. > c) doesn't let you seem strange by ignoring a template that requests it. What template would that be? I filed this using reportbug, and that does not seem to have any field for a long description. > If you like to question c) feel free to discuss it, like e.g. with the > reportbug maintainers (they have valid reasons to include it, see a) and > b), I guess), but don't go and simply ignore it. Uh, they *do not* include it. At least not where I can find it - just checked again. MfG Kai
