Ian Jackson wrote:
> We have been adopting the practice of removing such things from the
> source tarballs too. Personally I think this is a waste of our time,
> unless the files are very large or there is some other reason why
> leaving them in is especially harmful.
>
> One reason why it might
Kumar Appaiah writes ("Re: postscropt document without source"):
> It is a hand-made one, following the _same_ format which Camm used for
> the earlier refblas. Refer these:
>
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/12/msg00012.html
> 2. http://lists.debian.org
Colin Tuckley writes ("postscropt document without source"):
> Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
> this sufficient or do I also need to remove it from the source package -
> which implies re-packaging the .orig.tar.gz
We have been adopt
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 04:13:50PM +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Colin Tuckley wrote:
>> I'm working on a package (blas) that contains a postscript document with no
>> source supplied by upstream.
>>
>> Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
>> this sufficien
Colin Tuckley wrote:
I'm working on a package (blas) that contains a postscript document with no
source supplied by upstream.
Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
this sufficient or do I also need to remove it from the source package -
which implies re-pack
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:11:36PM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Yes. Please see the latest mails from debian-toolchain for context.
>
> Okay, thanks for doing the grunt work. But which upstream tarball are
> you using? Everything I could find at Netlib doesn't have a PDF at all.
It is a hand-ma
Am Montag, den 14.01.2008, 17:22 +0530 schrieb Kumar Appaiah:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > > Right, so a source tarball repack is needed.
> >
> > Which blas package is this? The one from netlib?
>
> Yes. Please see the latest mails from debian-toolchain for
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Right, so a source tarball repack is needed.
>
> Which blas package is this? The one from netlib?
Yes. Please see the latest mails from debian-toolchain for context.
Thanks.
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah,
458, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Ins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Weber wrote:
> Which blas package is this? The one from netlib?
It is the one prepared by Kumar Appaiah. It is intended to be a replacement
for refblas3 since it's been transitioned to gFortran. See the thread on
d-toolchain for more details.
Am Montag, den 14.01.2008, 10:41 + schrieb Colin Tuckley:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > Source, as we ship the source too. For the (C)/license checks in NEW it
> > (*nearly*) doesn't matter if you ship it in the binary package or not.
>
> R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Source, as we ship the source too. For the (C)/license checks in NEW it
> (*nearly*) doesn't matter if you ship it in the binary package or not.
Right, so a source tarball repack is needed.
Thanks,
Colin
- --
Colin Tuckley
On 11264 March 1977, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> I'm working on a package (blas) that contains a postscript document with no
> source supplied by upstream.
> Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
> this sufficient or do I also need to remove it from the source pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm working on a package (blas) that contains a postscript document with no
source supplied by upstream.
Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
this sufficient or do I also need to remove it from the source package
13 matches
Mail list logo
