On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:31:07PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:17:26PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > > > > > >>> * Package name : libsdl2-mixer > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Isn't this packaged already? You don't need to file WNPP bugs for > > > > > >> SONAME > > > > > >> bumps... > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a massive new major release. Think perl5 vs perl6. > > > > > > > > > > The point isn't that "it's in the archive", the point is that "you > > > > > don't > > > > > need to deal with WNPP for new upstream versions of stuff you're > > > > > already > > > > > doing". > > > > > > > > I think it was more of "it's going to be a new source package." > > > Which is countered by "you don't need an ITP lock for stuff already having > > > a maintainer". > > > > But the new source package doesn't have a maintainer until you upload it. > Are you afraid someone will start working on libsdl2 without asking the > maintainer of libsdl1?
Not really, but I recall lintian complaining if you don't close an ITP in your first changelog entry. Doesn't hurt to just file an ITP anyway, right? It just makes your intention clear. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
