RE: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at probablyprime dot net>]

> > Package: sgrep 1.92.1-1  [2003-09-15]
> > Package: joe 2.9.8-1  [2003-11-11]
> > Package: aspell-de 0.50.2-1  [2004-01-30]
> > Package: aspell-pl 0.50.2-1  [2004-01-30]
> 
> BTW, the last two above are dictionaries for an existing package -- should
> they need votes?  Is there a way to mark them as vote-exempt, but still
> needing reviews?

The last 2 also actually have all their votes and have been reviewed, only
hold up with that was discussion about internal versioning not matching
external versioning in some places.

> > ITP: tetrix  [2003-09-10]
> > Description: ESR's curses-based version of Tetris
> >    HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
> >
> > ITP: graphviz  [2003-09-25]
> > Description: Open source graph drawing software
> >    HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
> >
> > ITP: subversion 0.30-1  [2003-10-03]
> > Description: Client for Subversion revision control system
> >    HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
> >
> > ITP: GAP  [2003-10-06]
> > Description: a famous group manipulation package
> >    HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review!
> >
> > ITP: ns  [2003-10-18]
> > Description: The Network Simulator - ns-2
> >    HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review!
> 
> These have been on the PPL for ages with no activity.  Should there be a
> timeout?

Perhaps ones which don't get enough votes should time out, but ones which
obtain the required votes before there is even a package, probably should be
left in a 'wanted' list - perhaps after a timeout drop the listing of having
someone who submitted the idea.

I still do intend to package graphviz just waiting for an appropriate amount
of time to spend on it.

Gareth Pearce
PS yes, I changed emails.