On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andreas Noteng <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07. mars 2014 02:52, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> >> If there aren't any non-DFSG-compliant files in upstream's tarball >> (and I see nothing that would suggest that this file in particular is >> non-DFSG-compliant), please do not repack upstream's tarball; it's >> simply not necessary at all. You can simply remove this file on clean >> and regenerate it as you would normally do. > > No, the only issue is the non verifyable binary code in the script. If > you're ok with uploading the original tarball that's fine by me. SVN > updated.
If you can regenerate that file during the build process, I'd argue that it doesn't qualify as non-verifyable binary code (given that source is present and you do in fact regenerate the file). :) >> Looks ok, I haven't found any other issues other than the one above. > > The previous releases have been thoroughly checked by Jakub Wilk, so I think > it should be OK. :-) > >> >> Also, according to DEHS, there's a new upstream release that you may >> want to consider packaging. > > The newer tarball is a windows only change, so I'll wait for the next > upstream release. Ack. Built, signed, and uploaded; thanks for your contribution to Debian! Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBmkYdgBru5_4QZ+=Uu5MFz=F=v06uva8yauo0yb68...@mail.gmail.com
