[Debian-med-packaging] fw4spl_0.9.2-1_amd64.changes is NEW
andreas at an3as.eu
Fri Mar 6 17:45:18 UTC 2015
usually these rejects are based on missing license statements which
can often found using:
$ licensecheck -r * | grep -v -e UNKNOWN -e GENERATED
So mentioning these files in d/copyright with their license should be
one reason for the message below. Another thing could be that several
directories contain two files: COPYING and COPYING.LESSER. May be
Thorsten wants that this should be mentioned explicitly?
I have no better clue since Thorsten is usually more explicit
(specifically to newcomers). If he would not provide more items
that make this package looking like a reject we should probably
ask after fixing things above whether he is more happy with the
diff or if there are remaining things.
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:13:03PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> >binary:fw4spl is NEW.
> >source:fw4spl is NEW.
> Oooh, it is late to write a detailed email, but this looks like a
> reject ...
More information about the Debian-med-packaging