Thomas Viehmann schrieb: > Hi, > > Matthias Klose wrote: >> thanks for looking into this. after the second try to upload and 10 >> days in the >> NEW queue the review is a bit terse. >> >>> Up to now I found: >>> - The debian/copyright file seems to miss a lot of >>> copyright notices (e.g. of Red Hat, Maxwell, ASF, >>> I stopped after finding four). This is the main >>> reject reason. > >> it would be helpful if you could mention those. it would be >> appreciated if you >> could act proactively. > > Quite frankly, all of those that I found can be found by > find -type f | xargs -d '\n' grep -i copyright > (of course, be sure to untar at least the tar-archive before that, for > bonus points check that you don't have other archives that want unpacking). > Yes, there are a lot of false positives with that grep and you can do > all sorts of post-processing, but it is not rocket science to find the > notes, either. > > Seriously, checking copyright and license information is one of the > crucial things that happens during the NEW queue processing. It should > be no surprise that it is something to get right on the first attempt, > particularly if they are easily found with a bit of grep or just looking > at the files. Doing this a second time after looking at a hundred or so > source files to assess the quality of omissions is just as annoying to > me as having another upload going to NEW is to you.
so apparently four people didn't notice this. why not share your findings? >>> - There are some files in the generated subdir that >>> I'm not sure I found the source of. Could you >>> clarify this a bit for me? >> which files? Sorry, I really dislike rejecting a package for >> clarification >> reasons. You can ask if you are unsure. > > Indeed, and it would have been that if you did not miss a whole bunch of > copyright notes. again, please could you share your findings? >>> - usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency >>> is an explicit policy violation and not allowed. >> please be specific. or this lintian not detecting indirect dependencies? > > I read policy 12.5 to require a direct dependency, but if all of these > are indirect dependencies, I will not reject the package again just for > that. I filed #476810 for this. From my point of view interpretation of policy doesn't belong to NEW processing. Matthias _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openjdk Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+editemails More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
