* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-03 17:53:23 -0400]: > If the presense of this buried in an internal source file is so > vile/illegal/unlike other profanity in software in Debian that you have to > *repackage* the upstream tarball to hide it from the tender eyes of our users > (with all the problems that entails), why do you then turn around and add it > back in to the most important file that we expect our users to read?
Well, fair enough; I suppose the README.Debian note should not be quite
as explicit as I made it. I'm just not very happy with the gratuitous
(in my view) change to the upstream tarball, so I wanted to be as clear
about it as I could for anyone else wondering why it didn't match the
released tarball. If it were up to me, I wouldn't be making this change
at all, but it seems the alternative is to release lenny without
quodlibet, which is not very satisfactory either.
I've prepared a new version with this change here:
http://mithrandi.net/debian/pool/main/q/quodlibet/quodlibet_1.0.ds1-2.dsc
> PS: What does quodlibet sponsorship have to do with the debian-python mailing
> list?
It's a python package, and sponsorship requests for Python packages are
often sent to this list.
--
mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
