Hi Mathieu, Thanks for packaging dicom3tools; I'm eager to have them in Debian. On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 01:13:59AM +0200, mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com wrote: > I think I have hit an issue with the dicom3tools debian > packaging. The main author think -for good reasons- that this is a > bad idea to distribute binaries which will create invalid DICOM > file as I have done in the package. What is the issue, precisely? Does the tool create invalid DICOM inadvertently, or is it a tool designed to generate invalid DICOM for testing purposes? I can't see any problem with the latter, especially if that's the intent of the unmodified upstream source code. > My question is simply: > (1) Once package is uploaded, can I just make another release on top of it to destroy any evidence that there is a way to access some dicom3tools cmd line tool that the main author do not wish to distribute as binary ? > (2) Or should I somehow stop the review process to make sure none of the binary gets uploaded ? The package is still in NEW, but I believe you can make a second upload of the same revision and it will be overwritten. If that doesn't work, you can definitely make a revision -2 upload; both will appear in the NEW queue and should be processed together. Regards, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature