Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> affects 803724 - 801609 + license-reconcile
Bug #803724 [devscripts] [licensecheck]: need to spec out behaviour and conform
Removed indication that 803724 affects 801609
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need as
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 801609 -1
Bug #801609 [license-reconcile] license-reconcile: FTBFS: cannot parse file
't/data/example/sample.png'
Bug 801609 cloned as bug 803724
> reassign -1 devscripts
Bug #803724 [license-reconcile] license-reconcile: FTBFS: cannot pars
On 01/11/15 18:07, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
Could you provide
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2015-11-01 19:07:56)
> On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
>>
>> If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
>> what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
>
>
On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
>
> If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
> what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
Could you provide some example of licensecheck command
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2015-11-01 17:57:41)
> Old licensecheck scanned any file (including binary) when licensecheck
> was run with either of the following arguments:
> - a single file
> - one or more files matching a regexp passed to --check option
>
> On the other hand, licensecheck scanned
* RjY , 2015-10-28, 17:23:
debsnap seems to work perfectly well with JSON::PP, part of perl core
since 5.14, according to its manual page. So it might be nice to use it
instead of requiring the extra dependency?
I'd welcome this change too. Not that long ago I wanted to use debsnap
on a machi
On Saturday 31 October 2015 21:53:43 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You make it sound like I requested licensecheck to change behaviour,
> which was not the case.
That was not my intent. Sorry about that.
> I explicitly requested licensecheck to not change behaviour.
Yes. And I now understand what b
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:48:56PM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> 2.) I think what Steve meant to do was clone #801609, retitle and reassign
> the clone to devscripts. That's reasonable as there may well be more work to
> do.
No, that is not what I meant to do.
The behavior of devscripts has cha
