Jari Aalto wrote: > > See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom > > near debian/rules. > > This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not > warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. Except the FAQ doesn't say that it's a rejection criteria, just that lots of useless comments in debian/rules are a sign of a package which was potentially thrown together too quickly, and that if there are enough such signs it may tip a marginal package over into the REJECT category. FWIW, 70-90% of packages that I look at have either A) a commented out debhelper command or B) a comment saying "We have nothing to do by default." or C) an uncommented debhelper command that does nothing in this particular package right now Of these B is the most annoying indication that someone copied a template without thinking, while A and C are very close to the same thing, since debhelper is *optimised* for running lots of commands that don't do anything, so that people can just dump a whole lot of commands into a rules file and enable them by writing the appropriate debian/ files. C is also a lot harder to detect than A, you have to closely examine the package. It seems silly to me that the ftpmasters would take especial umbrage to A while not caring about B, and while probably not checking for C even though it is nearly identical to A in effect. -- see shy jo  Can anyone say "cdbs"?
Description: Digital signature