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

[Luke Faraone]

Hello Steve, Charles,

On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 22:35 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On July 20, 2013 10:29:19 PM Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 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?

From <https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html>:
        Your package contains generated files (such as compressed .js
        libraries) without corresponding original form. They're not
        considered as the preferred form of modification, so you will
        either have to provide corresponding original form, or **remove
        them from your tarball**, eventually depending on an already
        available packages to provide missing features.	

(emphasis added)

This also applies to (binary) files not used in the building of the
package. This was added to the REJECT-FAQ in October 2011.

Cheers,

Luke
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20130721/8e72c8d8/attachment.sig>