Web lists-archives.com

Re: Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]




On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 09:36 വൈകു, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is news to me. Policy §5.6.13 ('Description') doesn't explicitely
> forbid using code (or pseudocode), and even allows for verbatim lines
> (which start with two or more spaces).
> 
> I wonder if this was a case of the code not being sufficient
> description? [IE, code and a good text description would be accepted,
> but code only was not?]
> 

These packages were rejected and their description is given below.

1. node-pretty-bytes:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-January/017565.html

"unfortunately I have to reject your package. Examples should not
be placed in the synopsis.

Please have a look at paragraph 3.4 of the Debian policy[1] and
improve the wording of the synopsis and the long description in
your debian/control. Please also pay attention to footnote 9 of
that chapter[2].
While you are at it, chapter 5.6.13 might be of interest as well.

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-pretty-bytes.git/tree/debian/control?id=5d128d8a7a60cc629e7d5fa857d4be4a43bf031e

2. node-is-obj:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-January/017568.html

unfortunately I have to reject your package. There should be no
code in the description.
Please have a look at paragraph 3.4 of the Debian policy[1] and
improve the wording of the synopsis and the long description in
your debian/control. Please also pay attention to footnote 9 of
that chapter[2].
While you are at it, chapter 5.6.13 might be of interest as well.

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-is-obj.git/tree/debian/control?id=574546f8018c8f6db7d3155b5b510448aacafca5

3. node-is-generator-fn:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-January/017558.html

unfortunately I have to reject your package. There should be no
code in the description.
Please have a look at paragraph 3.4 of the Debian policy[1] and
improve the wording of the synopsis and the long description in
your debian/control. Please also pay attention to footnote 9 of
that chapter[2].
While you are at it, chapter 5.6.13 might be of interest as well.

git repo was recreated, so no reference for the rejected description.

It just had this code in addition to current description,

const isGeneratorFn = require('is-generator-fn');

isGeneratorFn(function * () {});
//=> true

isGeneratorFn(function () {});
//=> false


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature