Nitpicking in the NEW queue.
Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a drift
from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down nitpicking.
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:00:17AM +0000, Paul Richards Tagliamonte a écrit :
> Hello, maintainer,
> I'm sorry, but I've rejected your package.
> This package is also really small, is there no other package this fits into?
you have to understand how demotivating and infuriating it is to bounce from
people who think that these files should not be in their package to people who
think that these files should be in somebody else's package, with multi-week
waiting times or waiting lines in between the answers.
Earlier this year, I had another rejection email where I was asked to by the
way clean some emacs backups or whatever from the Upstream tarball. It is a
matter of taste. How do these comments guide us to undestand if the next
upload will be rejected or not ?
I would like that the FTP team please refrain from giving cheap side comments
or ask cheap questions in its rejection emails (have you noticed that the ITP
bug was originally submitted as a wishlist addition to another package ?) and
stick to what makes the package fit or not fit for our archive. Is a small
package acceptable, yes or no, where do you draw the line, and please assume
that the uploader acted responsibly, or if not, check first the facts before
PS: While I apologise for my error in the Debian copyright file, please note
that a quick inspection of the package could have shown you that replacing the
current content of the Files field by "*" would have solved the problem
entirely. I will re-upload "when I have time".