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 expression of a policy... > > > :) > > > > As far as I understood it was not done by mistake > > (*I* could have accepted the package by accident so inferring anything from > previous processing of packages could be misleading...)
Hi Chris, Thank you for your response. I wasn't involved with the initial set of uploads (but am intending to help get SBT into buster), so I might not have the complete story. 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 archive, and SBT is required for some of the builds. scala-tools-sbinary is the last of that set. Once we have the full complement in the archive, we will have the necessary tool chain to start picking apart the bootstrapdeps components. Frederic does a better job of describing it here [1]. My apologies (also to Thorsten) if my initial question came across as testy. The first set of uploads was in mid-April, and scala-tools-sbinary isn't obviously connected with that set. Is the acceptance of scala-tools-sbinary something that the FTP Masters would be willing to discuss? Cheers, tony [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2017/08/msg00092.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.