[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> writes:
> On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

>> 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.

> That is like treating debian policy a holy book that is perfect till
> eternity and that will not be changed.

I think it's quite unlikely as a project that we're ever going to change
Policy to say that packages don't have to have descriptions.

If it's worth packaging, there's some reason why it's worth packaging, and
there's some function that software fills.  All people are asking is that
this is documented in the package metadata.  I realize this is
particularly irritating for Node packages because they're so small and
there are so many of them, but *because* they're so small, usually it's
fairly easy to explain what they do?

I did about five minutes of Googling as a result of this thread, and
here's the description I came up with:

    Provides a tiny stub implementation of the tty module of the Node core
    library that always returns false to isatty and throws not implemented
    errors if ReadStream or WriteStream are called.

I agree that it's quite irritating that upstream didn't bother to put
something like that into any of the package metadata and released a
package with an empty README.markdown file.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: