On 10/18/2016 05:29 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 October 2016 08:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> This is so wrong, I would like to ask that this package not be allowed
>> into Debian until it's fixed.
> I agree this could be marked RC and stopped from going to a stable
> release. But do we stop accepting new packages in unstable because there
> are serious bugs?
Well, maintainers should always try to make sure that newly uploaded
packages don't immediately contain RC bugs. That doesn't always work
and I don't think "contains RC bug" should necessarily mean the
package can't go to unstable - but there's a limit, and just because
it's unstable doesn't mean that there shouldn't be at least minimal
If the package so clearly fails to achieve its _only_ goal as in
this case, I think it's a good idea to delay accepting it into the
archive until it's fixed.
That said, I don't want to discourage you, and to provide something
more productive for the discussion, I'd like to point you to the
This should help to fix the bug in question. 
I'll not say more here, because none of this is really your fault.
Instead I'd like to thank your for all the effort you put into
packaging, and I really am completely in awe of your persistence.
But I do think one of the things that makes Debian great is that
there are some standards that we've come to expect from packaged
software, and this specific package _currently_ just doesn't meet
even the bare minimum standards for unstable - in my opinion. I
hope there's going to be a fixed version of the package soon so it
may enter Debian and you can proceed with the other dependencies.
 Funnily enough it's from the same author.