[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Hash: SHA1

Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:22 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>>Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>>>What gives?  Is this sufficient justification for rejecting a
>>>lintian-clean package?
>>I think the REJECT-FAQ [1] 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?

Look at package split... You split the package too much...

>>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?

There are only a very few of this *empty* meta packages... though there
are a lot of unversioned development packages... Apparantly you didn't
understand Joerg's proposal? He proposed to remove the empty packages
and to drop the version in the *name* of the development, debug (and
documentation) package. This will make sure that a user automatically
updates to the latest version...

> Or by "ask (or try)", do you mean that I should re-upload again?

No, unless you think it will be accepted.



- --
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: