Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:22 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 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  will give you already some answers.
I don't see anything there pertaining to my package. Perhaps I am
overlooking something, can you please be more specific?
> 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 :-)
Hmm, there are numerous such meta packages in Debian, are they now
against policy or otherwise discouraged? How is a user to automatically
update to the latest version?
As you could see in my message, I did ask Joerg again, but with no reply
for a week, so nobody but Joerg knows what I did or didn't convince him
of. Joerg, can you please comment?
Or by "ask (or try)", do you mean that I should re-upload again?
Thank you for the prompt reply.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!