Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Le 27/08/2017 à 18:48, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit : > ok, but this seems to be wrong. If scala-tools-sbinary really is the > last package, it must not contain any binary jar files but could use > packages from the archive, right? My understanding it that it's actually the last dependency required

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Tony et al., On Sun, 27 Aug 2017, tony mancill wrote: I was in fact inferring some special (but temporary) dispensation for these packages because my understanding is that it won't be possible to build SBT from source until the entire set of related packages is in the

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Would it be ok to target non-free instead of main until the even in non-free the debian/copyright has to have the correct contents. bootstrapping is complete and the binaries removed from the source tarballs? Hmm, this will result in sbt being in

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Would it be ok to target non-free instead of main until the bootstrapping is complete and the binaries removed from the source tarballs? Emmanuel Bourg __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team . Please

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 06:49:35AM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > > > > I'm confused about this package being rejected when a number of other > > > > packages constructed in exactly the same manner were accepted in April. > > > > > > This could have been a mistake rather than an

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Andreas, > > > I'm confused about this package being rejected when a number of other > > > packages constructed in exactly the same manner were accepted in April. > > > > This could have been a mistake rather than an expression of a policy... :) > > As far as I understood it was not done

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Chris and Thorsten, On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 08:47:28PM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote: > Tony, > > > I'm confused about this package being rejected when a number of other > > packages constructed in exactly the same manner were accepted in April. > > This could have been a mistake rather than an

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Tony, > I'm confused about this package being rejected when a number of other > packages constructed in exactly the same manner were accepted in April. This could have been a mistake rather than an expression of a policy... :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'`

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:00:10AM +, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Frédér, > > your package seems to consist mostly of jar files without the corresponding > sources. So I am afraid I have to reject it. > > Thorsten > > > > === > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you

scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Frédér, your package seems to consist mostly of jar files without the corresponding sources. So I am afraid I have to reject it. Thorsten === 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