Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-11-01 Thread Frode Solheim
On 01. nov. 2013 10:13, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> http://fossies.org/dox/uade-2.13/sinc-integral_8py.html > @Frode: > > Could you just include the "contrib" folder from this tarball in > your fs-uae upstream source code? I will re-pack the fs-uae > tarball for that purpose in Debian. Sure

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-11-01 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 11/01/2013 10:44 AM, Frode Solheim wrote: > On 01. nov. 2013 10:13, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> http://fossies.org/dox/uade-2.13/sinc-integral_8py.html >> @Frode: >> >> Could you just include the "contrib" folder from this tarball in >> your fs-uae upstream source code? I will re-pack t

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-11-01 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 11/01/2013 02:36 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> As for the "sinctable.cpp" file, I'm not sure exactly what it does, >>> but is it really necessary to have the Python script available? >> >> We need the preferred form of modification for a work. In the case of >> generated code, it is

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-10-31 Thread Luke Faraone
Hello John, On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 02:02 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > For fs-uae, which is a fork of uae, this holds true because the > source has been modified by dozens of developers and has been > forked several times since uae was initially released. There > are so many contributio

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-10-31 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 11/01/2013 02:19 AM, Luke Faraone wrote: > Hello John, Adrian :). >> Interestingly, the file "filesys_bootrom.cpp" is already part >> both of "uae" and "e-uae" which are currently both in the >> Debian archive. It's part of the uae sources and subject >> to it's copyright. > > A bug should pr

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-10-31 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 02:02:33AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hello Paul, Yo! > > thanks for reviewing fs-uae again! My pleasure :) > It's a pity it got rejected again since we are desperately waiting > for fs-uae to be in the archives so we can finally get rid of both > "uae" a

Re: fs-uae_2.2.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2013-10-31 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello Paul, thanks for reviewing fs-uae again! It's a pity it got rejected again since we are desperately waiting for fs-uae to be in the archives so we can finally get rid of both "uae" and "e-uae" which have been abandoned both in Debian as well upstream. As for your complaints, I understand t