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