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
Re: libxfont_2.0.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
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. So from my point of view it is a good reason. But we already had that discussion ... Thorsten
Re: libxfont_2.0.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 22:00:09 +, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Timo, > > 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. Please refrain from causing such busy work for you and maintainers, this is just useless... Thanks, Julien
Re: libxfont_2.0.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 18:00:08 +, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Timo, > > can you please take care of: > E: libxfont source: no-human-maintainers > This is not new, it's how most debian-x packages are today, see https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-human-maintainers.html and bug #798476, I don't believe this is a reason to reject. Cheers, Julien
