Re: openjdk-6_6b08-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Matthias Klose wrote:
thanks for looking into this. after the second try to upload and 10 days in the
NEW queue the review is a bit terse.
Up to now I found:
- The debian/copyright file seems to miss a lot of
copyright notices (e.g. of Red Hat, Maxwell, ASF,
I stopped after finding four). This is the main
it would be helpful if you could mention those. it would be appreciated if you
could act proactively.
Quite frankly, all of those that I found can be found by
find -type f | xargs -d '\n' grep -i copyright
(of course, be sure to untar at least the tar-archive before that, for bonus
points check that you don't have other archives that want unpacking).
Yes, there are a lot of false positives with that grep and you can do all sorts
of post-processing, but it is not rocket science to find the notes, either.
Seriously, checking copyright and license information is one of the crucial
things that happens during the NEW queue processing. It should be no surprise
that it is something to get right on the first attempt, particularly if they are
easily found with a bit of grep or just looking at the files. Doing this a
second time after looking at a hundred or so source files to assess the quality
of omissions is just as annoying to me as having another upload going to NEW is
- There are some files in the generated subdir that
I'm not sure I found the source of. Could you
clarify this a bit for me?
which files? Sorry, I really dislike rejecting a package for clarification
reasons. You can ask if you are unsure.
Indeed, and it would have been that if you did not miss a whole bunch of
is an explicit policy violation and not allowed.
please be specific. or this lintian not detecting indirect dependencies?
I read policy 12.5 to require a direct dependency, but if all of these are
indirect dependencies, I will not reject the package again just for that.