Re: search-citeseer_0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED
* Otavio Salvador <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2003-10-16 20:44]:
> Yes. This way to show issues is the right one but the James way is
> not. He doesn't do a suggestion but an exigency. This is wrong.
I've seen package being rejected with a reason plus a note saying
something like "but if you don't agree with me, please re-upload".
In your case, rejecting your package was the right thing; I don't see
much reason for any argument or discussion in this particular case,
since it's quite clear (as this thread has shown).
I'm glad that there are some people who control uploads; infact, I
wish they sometimes were stricter (*grumble about animals-games being
accepted which I raised an objection when the ITP was posted*).