Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 02/10/2017 04:32 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> 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 agree it makes sense or
> packages that are going to be installed by users directly. What I'm
> asking for is to consider a change in the policy when the package is
> expected to be installed only as a dependency of some other package. We
> could probably just add some additional metadata in debian/control or
> have apt and other tools hide these packages by default (there was
> another suggestion like this earlier in this list).
Long descriptions are useful for *any* package, and I don't want to see
exceptions granted so that they are badly written, too short, and not
descriptive.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: