On my phone, excuse the Cc and (I'm guessing HTML mail)
On Sep 1, 2013 10:59 PM, "Charles Plessy" <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 ... Is why I rejected the package. You didn't have copyright noted for any files in the package (and noted a file that didn't exist)
> > This package is also really small, is there no other package this fits into?
> Hi Paul,
> 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.
Respectfully - when we add micro (under Size 100 packages) the amount of metadata added to every mirror and every users machine is almost as much as the package contents.
This is a very common request (make sure this really needs to be split out ) and not even the reason for this reject.
> 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
These "cheep comments" are intended to be helpful. I'm sorry you don't appreciate it, but folks are usually thankful for the second pair of eyes on the changes.
> 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".
> Charles Plessy
> Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: 20130902025841.GD8835@falafel.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20130902025841.GD8835@falafel.plessy.net