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

[Luke Faraone]

Steve, Charles, and others,

On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 02:42 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Let's recall what the intention is.  The goal is is that, as indicated above, 
> the tarball contain the files in "the preferred form of modification".  Assuming 
> it does, and such files are used in the build, there is no harm if the tarball 
> also includes (accidentally or intentionally) generated files.

After reviewing the relevant policies and precedents, I believe this
package could be accepted into the archive if re-uploaded.

To be clear: it would be _strongly preferred_ that this file not be
included in the tarball; it is difficult for us to audit what is in this
shared object file. Consider also a tarball which for example contained
an unused binary which was a derivative work of a non-free program; even
though the binary wasn't run on user systems it would still be
distributed and therefore be potentially problematic for us. 

However, the responsibility for that rests on the maintainer's
shoulders.

If you feel that repacking the tarball would be an undue burden and are
confident that the shared object file (which we have not verified is
buildable from sources to a byte-identical version) is distributable,
you are welcome to reupload the package. Please let me know if you do so
to allow me to get to it sooner. 

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/f64ceabf/attachment.sig>