hi Christopher, On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote: > Hi! > > The `mosh` you quote reads > > mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo > > This is something totaly different from > > mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
I propose that the ITP is renamed to mosh-scheme, or something else that the project finds appropriate. This is an easier solution than renaming mosh (the mobile shell) now that it's been uploaded. And, it's unclear that mosh (the scheme interpreter) would ever actually be uploaded anyway since, despite the ITP, months have passed without the package appearing or any new reports on its status. > Additionally I find it highly inappropriate for someone to take a > package name with an open and active ITP bug [0] for some totaly unrelated > package bypassing the wnpp step and uploading to the archive. Please. I find it highly amusing that anyone would prioritize a dubiously active bug report over actual action. There is no policy that says one MUST file an ITP bug in order to make a package upload. I do apologize that I didn't check before making the upload and attempt to engage in a conversation with David and anyone who may have been following the ITP. cheers, Christine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120325190839.GA13689@localhost.localdomain
