Wichert Akkerman writes: > Previously Matthew Vernon wrote: > > I think also the principle of only rejecting uploads with RC bugs in > > is important (ignoring the flamefests elsewhere about whether or not > > you think maintainers should spend their lives dotting all the is and > > t's or producing slightly buggy packages with whatever time they have) > > - if it's not RC, then the package would be releasable, so has > > contributed in a positive manner to Debian, so should not be rejected. > > In the case of adns the way it is packaged would be reason enough to > file a release-critical bug on it, as you have been told in the latest > rejection message. The fact that there is no release critical bug at > the moment is only because it hasn't been accepted in the distribution > yet.
Which error are you referring to? Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
