That was discussed also in order to accept the package after it got in NEW (it includes a new binary for libraries) and the maintainer had no objections. http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/i/666683-312013102255PM.png
Best regards, Nick -- =Do- N.AND 2013/3/1 Guillem Jover <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 00:54:11 +0100, Nick Andrik wrote: >> 2013/1/22 Martin Meredith <[email protected]>: >> > Why the confersion to cdbs? >> > >> > Ca I gets a debdiff? >> >> I switched to cdbs because I think (on my experience) it produces way >> much simpler debian/rules, especially now that we have to also support >> hardening flags and we build both a binary and a library package. >> >> Also, if you recall the discussion on the license of debian/* files, I >> would appreciate a word on what license the packaging (debian/*) files >> should be put under. > > Did Martin ever agree to the packaging helper conversion, maybe > offlist (uploader CCed)? Otherwise such stuff is completely > unacceptable for an NMU. > > Thanks, > Guillem > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
