Re: jlapack_0.8~dfsg-3~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2016, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > jlapack (0.8~dfsg-3~bpo8+1) jessie-backports; urgency=medium
> > 
> >   * Rebuild for jessie-backports.
> > 
> >  -- Andreas Tille   Fri, 01 Jul 2016 22:52:39 +0200
> jlapack| 0.8~dfsg-1| stable/contrib  | source
> jlapack| 0.8~dfsg-3| testing | source
> 
> There are no user visible changes in the packages that justify a backport.

The point is that the package was moved to main and users in Jessie who
might exclude non-free can use it now.  There will be two other package
in the queue which also have no source changes.  The final target
beast-mcmc is now in main as well and if the preconditions are in
stable/contrib I would need to backport from main to contrib which makes
no sense.

Does this clarify the issue?

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Re: jlapack_0.8~dfsg-3~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Alexander,

I can't parse this.  Changelog was (or should have been)

jlapack (0.8~dfsg-3~bpo8+1) jessie-backports; urgency=medium

  * Rebuild for jessie-backports.

 -- Andreas Tille   Fri, 01 Jul 2016 22:52:39 +0200


Anything wrong about this?

Kind regards

  Andreas.

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:02:46PM +, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> 
> I see nothing in the changelog that warrants a backport.
> 
> ===
> 
> Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
> your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
> concerns.
> 
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.