Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi,
On 09/02/17 17:47, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> I am sorry, but I don't understand why you module makes sense.
>> Please add a more detailed description to your debian/control.
>
> This is seriously becoming too much. "This module is a dependency
> for browserify." is already present in the description. And short
> description says "tty module from node core for browsers".
>
> We are not expecting anyone to install this module directly. You
> can't apply the same standard of a full featured application to a
> small module. The whole node eco system is different from what we
> are used to before or after.
>
> You can't ask to do two mutually exclusive things at the same
> time. You have to either grant an exception to browserified
> javascript or accept small modules. You can't have it both ways.
> How do you expect we package browserify if you reject its
> dependencies like tty-browserify?
>
> I'm not super thrilled to package so many small dependencies, but
> I'm forced to package them because ruby-handlebars-assets won't
> be accepted without browserify. I'd happily stop packaging all
> these small modules if you grant an exception for
> ruby-handlebars-assets.
tiny node packages are being accepted all the time, but you're still expected to
follow policy and do your job as a maintainer - otherwise, things will get rejected.
If you took a couple of minutes to write a proper package description that
wasn't "some package needs it", then your package would get accepted (assuming
there are no other problems) and everyone would be happy. And you would get less
complains on debian-devel@ to your ITPs as well.
It doesn't matter that your package is small and that users won't normally
install it directly. It's still mandated that it includes a description, and
ftpmasters are only doing their job.
Cheers,
Emilio
PS: many thanks to the ftpmaster for doing a (so often) thankless job!
Reply to: