[Debian-med-packaging] r-other-mott-happy_2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Steve M. Robbins]

On July 20, 2013 10:29:19 PM Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 08:57:39AM -0400, Luke Faraone a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 17:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Le Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 06:02:22AM +0000, Luke Faraone a écrit :
> > > > The upstream source contains pre-compiled shared object files in
> > > > .\happy.hbrem\src\happy.hbrem.so and
> > > > .\happy.hbrem\src-i386\happy.hbrem.so.
> > > > 
> > > > Please repack the tarball and reupload. While you're doing so, feel
> > > > free
> > > > to remove all of the ~ and #*# files that upstream left in the
> > > > tarball.
> > > 
> > > Hi Luke and everybody,
> > > 
> > > It happens that I am becoming increasingly busy at work.  I have no time
> > > to spend on polishing upstream's tarball cosmetically.
> > 
> > The REJECT reasons were not cosmetic; we cannot be distributing binaries
> > for which we cannot assuredly build from source, even in source
> > tarballs.
> 
> Yes, we can distribute these binaries that are not build from source,
> because they are cruft.  As you suspected, after deleting the files,
> everything works fine.  To me, it demonstrates that repacking is pointless,
> because it provides no service to anybody.

I agree with Charles.  I typically handle such items by deleting them in the 
"clean" target to demonstrate they are not used to generate the binary.  
That's always been sufficient in the past.  Has something changed?

-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20130720/31f08a9a/attachment.sig>