Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Greetings,
Hi
> Can someone please clarify what's going on here?
>
> * On November 1, I uploaded petsc-2.3.0-1_i386.changes.
> * On Sunday 11/6, Joerg Jaspert marked my upload "rejected for
> now", citing number of packages and naming convention as a
> reason.
> * I gave the reason for my naming convention and number of
> packages.
> * He hasn't replied in a week.
>
> What gives? Is this sufficient justification for rejecting a
> lintian-clean package?
>
> What is "rejected for now", and where is such a process/status described
> on the Debian website? Do I re-upload the same package, or bump the
> version number and re-upload?
>
> Has my clarification been heard, and accepted? Or Will the package be
> rejected again for the same reason?
>
> Looking for answers...
I think the REJECT-FAQ [1] will give you already some answers. I don't
think that you convinced Joerg that there are ugly meta packages needed
for coexistence of development packages... Probably he won't oppose just
dropping the 2 meta packages and keeping the versioned development
packages though, but you'll have to ask (or try) as I am not Joerg :-)
Cheers
Luk
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
- --
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDeMe55UTeB5t8Mo0RAmonAJ4yn852PKig0lk11Lw7SEuRE6YGfwCgwAt1
luphV+wsdfDGHuYdWUjvCJM=
=2E9q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: