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

Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Bastian

My apologies in advance for doing this, but another month has passed.
Another ping from me.

On 2018/10/25 12:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
Lumin writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
1. Isn't "incomplete backtrace" a sensible reason to keep debug symbols?
    Policy said "should" but not "must". Please tell me what I can do in
    order to help improve the src:julia package to satisfy the requirements?

My main concern here is this: AFAICT this package has been REJECTed
solely for this reason.  Why is this bug[1] a reason for a REJECT ?
ISTM that it should be filed in the BTS and handled like a normal bug.

Ping, ftpmaster ?


[1] Assuming it is a bug.  The discussion here suggests to me that it
is, but it is really unhelpful to be having it on debian-devel in the
context of an ftpmaster REJECTion.

From the original REJECTion email from mid-August [1], there were two issues, but I believe both have been explained in the follow-up emails and subsequent uploads.


[1] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-julia-devel/Week-of-Mon-20180813/001840.html

Reply to: