On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kartik Mistry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
apply) so, that
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
(packaging, contacting upstream for license issues etc).
Fine.
If you
- get a
Hi,
Kartik Mistry wrote:
I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] sane does not mean
- assume that every uploader does it right and closes ITPs in
changelog (or even mention them),
- parsing wnpp bug data everytime
How about BCC'ing the reject mail to a mailing list with a public,
web-browsable
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about BCC'ing the reject mail to a mailing list with a public,
web-browsable archive?
Yes, even publicly available report is also fine.
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
Homepage:
Hi,
I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
(packaging, contacting
6 matches
Mail list logo
