On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:35:19PM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Two quick things on the checklist: > - Maybe do add a quirk that the prospective packager should (or even say must) > have read the canonical docs (policy, d.'s r., newmaint) and that the > checklist > not a subsitute. Every now and then I do get the impression that some > (fortunately not many) sponsor-seekers didn't (e.g. when they didn't package > the source...). > You could argue that this is implied, but there's bound to be the ones that > do > the "why, if there's a checklist, I don't have to go through all the policy > myself".
Added. Having just rejected a potential sponsee for this very thing, I guess I should have added it sooner. <g> > - For descriptions, there also is [1], which seems to be pretty canonical. Added, with thanks. - Matt
