Re: libxfont_2.0.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 20:35:32 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>unless there is no new consent found in #798476, the policy is still
> >>valid and I have to reject your package:
> >> E: libxfont source: no-human-maintainers
> >>
> >No, you very much don't "have to". That lintian warning doesn't make
> >the package unsuitable for distribution, or use, this is *not* a good
> >enough reason to reject a package.
>
> it is not only a warning, but a lintian error. It is against policy, where
> policy contains a "must". There is no consent to change policy.
I see no evidence of lack of consensus, but more a broken policy
process / lack of active policy maintainers. I also don't believe NEW's
purpose is to enforce random policy "must" clauses that everyone
including ftp-master ignores the rest of the time, rather than
distributability and trying to avoid trivially (functionally) broken new
packages. Could you explain what exactly is achieved by having a fake
Uploaders entry in NEW, that is dropped again as soon as the package is
accepted, just to comply with an inconsistently enforced requirement?
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: