Re: openjdk-6_6b08-1_i386.changes REJECTED
the java.net list is subscriber only and after some chat it appears that most of
the problems are indeed local to Debian, so I dropped them from the CC.
Matthias Klose wrote:
- 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
Of course, the ASF copyright is included in debian/copyright, shame on me.
Thanks Matthias for pointing that out on IRC.
- 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?
Matthias pointed to the source for the IDL-generated files on IRC, resolving
quite a bit of the concerns. Thanks.
Some stuff I am currently not sure about how to find the source (all in generated/)
- the language specific stuff, (files ending in _??.java, some in
- the things generated by mc.scm (com/sun/corba/se/impl/),
- some stuff in */management/ (some with "generated by rmic" notice).
The source for all of these probably is well known to the experts, so the above
is as much for my own reference as it for you knowing what I am presently not
sure about in case you want to help me find things.
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
I filed #476810 for this. From my point of view interpretation of policy doesn't
belong to NEW processing.
Thanks for filing the bug. I am not sure that reading "the first package Depends
on foo" as "it has a Depends: foo" is much of an interpretation, but it should
be more clear after resolving the bug.