On 2017-04-12 17:09, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:47:35PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> On 2017-04-12 10:44, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote:
Coalescing entries c
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:47:35PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> On 2017-04-12 10:44, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote:
> >> Coalescing entries can be done by 'scan-copyrights' or 'cme updat
On 2017-04-12 10:44, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Dominique Dumont wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote:
>> Coalescing entries can be done by 'scan-copyrights' or 'cme update dpkg-
>> copyright' (provided by cme and libconfig-model-dpkg-perl pack
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote:
> Coalescing entries can be done by 'scan-copyrights' or 'cme update dpkg-
> copyright' (provided by cme and libconfig-model-dpkg-perl packages)
For reference, there are some more c
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote:
> I asked on IRC, didn't get a definitive answer, but my feeling is that
> there is a preference for giving attribution when possible. I wrote a
> simple shell script that generates the copyright entries for the lexers,
> the output is like
On 2017-04-11 09:33 +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> [Note for whoever lands here: the package has been rejected from NEW
> because of unattributed files in lua/lexers].
>
> Hello Adam,
>
> I didn't realize that some files in lua/lexers were not fully attributed
> in debian/copyright. Regarding th
On 2017-04-11 15:28, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:33:59AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> [Note for whoever lands here: the package has been rejected from NEW
>> because of unattributed files in lua/lexers].
>>
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>> I didn't realize that some files in lua/lexer
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:33:59AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> [Note for whoever lands here: the package has been rejected from NEW
> because of unattributed files in lua/lexers].
>
> Hello Adam,
>
> I didn't realize that some files in lua/lexers were not fully attributed
> in debian/copyrigh
[Note for whoever lands here: the package has been rejected from NEW
because of unattributed files in lua/lexers].
Hello Adam,
I didn't realize that some files in lua/lexers were not fully attributed
in debian/copyright. Regarding those files: there is one main author
(that is attributed), then m
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:20:33PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> It seems silly to me that the ftpmasters would take especial umbrage to
> A while not caring about B, and while probably not checking for C even
> though it is nearly identical to A in effect.
I think the ftpmasters should have much bett
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. The dh_* calls are there
> for later upgrade of the package and retaining the order of the items is
> not the
Jari Aalto wrote:
> > See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom
> > near debian/rules.
>
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters.
Except the FAQ doesn't sa
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly. So in order to understand my own packages better I leave the
> dh_* calls in, commented out so I can grep for them and see that they
> are disabled.
Well, I never felt this need.
> Being a DD, I think I should be able to make that judgement for
Hello,
Florent Rougon schrieb:
I'd say that if you're ready to sacrifice understanding of your package
in order to spare 15 seconds, you should probably spend your time on
something else than official Debian packages...
Exactly. So in order to understand my own packages better I leave the
dh
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you argue that you are not skilled if you comment your dh_* calls?
No, rather that if you're skilled, you don't need to comment them.
> You could simply not want to loose time to find back the good order...
I'd say that if you're ready to sacrif
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Florent Rougon wrote:
> I disagree. If you aren't able to figure out a sane order for the dh_
> calls by yourself, you shouldn't be maintaining the package IMO (of
> course, you could maintain a private package for yourself and your
> friends, but we are talking here ab
Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see a problem with the readability of debian/rules with
> the commented dh_ lines, and I agree with Jari Aalto that leaving the
> commented dh_ lines can be useful, so I would vote "allow" if a
> discussion would be held for this.
I disagr
ut lines.
> >
> > See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom
> > near debian/rules.
>
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. The dh_* calls are
> there
dth
>> etc.[1]
>
> One can certainly argue both sides of this, but on this point in
> particular, ftp-masters actually made a ruling and asked people to remove
> the commented-out lines.
>
> See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
