On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:17:38AM +0200, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote: > > - debian/rules : > > - why do you remove RPATHs from executables and binary ? It's stated > > briefly > > in NEWS.debian, but the reason is not there. > > Without this hack, it doesn't compile and build. I'll add a line about > it in NEWS.Debian (or README.Debian?).
Eventually README.Debian as it does not concern end-users. > > - as libgtkpod.la is new, no reverse dependencies should depend on its > > existence. It should be safe not to install it[1]. > > OK, gonna remove it. However I asked in IRC channel and they told me how > to blank the dependency_libs field and keep the rest of the file, for > compatibility. Actually there is no need to be compatible as nothing depends on it ATM :) > > - the "README.debian" is not necessary. > > Really? OK. I mean the line in debian/changelog : it adds nothing because relevant information is already in README.debian. -- Etienne Millon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110509101220.gb5...@john.ssi.corp
