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

Re: openjdk-6_6b08-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Thomas Viehmann schrieb:
> Hi,
> 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
>>>   reject reason.
>> 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 to you.

so apparently four people didn't notice this. why not share your findings?

>>> - 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
> copyright notes.

again, please could you share your findings?

>>> - usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency
>>>   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.

I filed #476810 for this. From my point of view interpretation of policy doesn't
belong to NEW processing.


Reply to: