Le Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:14:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > Thanks for working on this. Some comments: I perfectly agree with > rebuilding original tarball to remove cruft (and IMHO a debian directory > inside an upstream tarball belongs into this category) but *I* would > prefer if this fact is simply stated in README.source. I know the > content / usage of README.source is not yet defined about this issue > but if you ask me it simply helps and people will not be forced reading > debian/rules to find out what get-orig-source is actually doing.
Hello everybody, and many thanks Mathieu for packaging igraph. This opens our activities to systems biology :) Concerning the debian directory, I strongly suggest to discuss the issue with upstream. Either they will simply delete it, or if they would prefer to keep providing it, they will likely accept patches from you that will make their debian directory harmless for official packages using unmodified upstream tarballs. This will simplify your work. Thank you as well for adopting a machine-readable format for the Debian copyright file. I lost the reference, but it was clearly written by our archive administrators that it is needed to keep the GPL boilerplate. Can you restore it? (and actually repair it, as it was lacking ‘or (at your option) any later version.’). Lastly, how about the R igraph package? Are you intersted to package it? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
