Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Miriam Ruiz
--- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On Mon Apr 30 21:02, Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Wanting to play with the new version I started doing the dfsg packaging. I've hence updated the version number in the changelog to be .dfsg and

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Tue May 01 12:01, Miriam Ruiz wrote: I seriously doubt it, but we might try. In any case we should have a preplacement available, even if it's a different one than the original. Maybe it would be wise to give upstream an option to have a say in the decision too? Sure I still expect that

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Miriam Ruiz
--- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Probably, but it will be more work. I don't see any real reason why if amanith is packaged we shouldn't use it all the time. To give users the option. Less dependencies, lighter install. Also being able to give upstream a optimal patch. Is it

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Tue May 01 12:50, Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Probably, but it will be more work. I don't see any real reason why if amanith is packaged we shouldn't use it all the time. To give users the option. Less dependencies, lighter install. Also being

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Miriam Ruiz
--- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On Tue May 01 12:50, Miriam Ruiz wrote: well, we're shipping a load of png files as it is, I'm not sure that amanith instead is much of a lose. I also don't buy 'less dependencies' as a reason---users don't have to care about that, apt does it

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-05-01 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Tue May 01 13:20, Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On Tue May 01 12:50, Miriam Ruiz wrote: well, we're shipping a load of png files as it is, I'm not sure that amanith instead is much of a lose. I also don't buy 'less dependencies' as a

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-04-30 Thread Matthew Johnson
Wanting to play with the new version I started doing the dfsg packaging. I've hence updated the version number in the changelog to be .dfsg and updated the get-orig-source rule in debian/rules to remove all the songs we can't distribute. Miry, any update on suitable fonts? On a similar note, does

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-04-30 Thread Miriam Ruiz
--- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Wanting to play with the new version I started doing the dfsg packaging. I've hence updated the version number in the changelog to be .dfsg and updated the get-orig-source rule in debian/rules to remove all the songs we can't distribute. Miry,

Bug#383316: Repackaging tarball

2007-04-30 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Mon Apr 30 21:02, Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Wanting to play with the new version I started doing the dfsg packaging. I've hence updated the version number in the changelog to be .dfsg and updated the get-orig-source rule in debian/rules to