From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10399 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2009 14:44:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 10389 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2009 14:44:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:44:42 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049AA202B06 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:44:41 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (user-0cej09l.cable.mindspring.com [24.233.129.53]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D2F048A82; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:44:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4964BFD7.6060106@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:44:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mailing List: CygWin-Apps Subject: Re: [ITP] gcc-tools-autoconf, gcc-tools-automake References: <495FBEB4.7020403@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <49643FA1.209@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20090107060024.GB25676@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4964AA4C.8090808@byu.net> In-Reply-To: <4964AA4C.8090808@byu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 For some reason I don't see the following message: > According to Christopher Faylor on 1/6/2009 11:00 PM: >> The number of votes required is five, not two. But my reply is, this wasn't a traditional ITP anyway. I'm already the maintainer of all existing packages in the automake and autoconf families. I don't ask for five votes when adding a new automake1.(N+1) package series, and I didn't ask for five votes when replacing wholesale the old autoconf-stable/devel with the autoconf2.1/2.5 series(es) -- tho I did in that case solicit discussion. This is similar -- but not identical. There were some concerns, but I felt that I explained adequately my reasoning and the need for a new package series for each of these two pre-existing package families to go forward. Perhaps I should have titled my original post [RFD] rather than [ITP]. But I didn't. So if you (cgf) would like, I'll pull the gcc-tools-* packages and wait for 3 (2 more now, counting Eric's) more votes. No big deal. -- Chuck