Neil Williams wrote:
> after fixing the typo, preparing a package and testing, do I need to
> build using -sa ?
from the maintainer point of view, you can ignore the existence of NEW
completely.
the only difference is, that the "accepted" (or rejected) comes with
some delay due it's manual proces
[Neil Williams]
> When a package (foo-1.2.3-1) is in the NEW queue and one finds a rather
> annoying typo that really ought to be fixed ... :-)
>
> after fixing the typo, preparing a package and testing, do I need to
> build using -sa ?
Pretty sure you do not need -sa, but you should consider -v
When a package (foo-1.2.3-1) is in the NEW queue and one finds a rather
annoying typo that really ought to be fixed ... :-)
after fixing the typo, preparing a package and testing, do I need to
build using -sa ?
The .orig.tar.gz was uploaded to NEW so I'm presuming it's OK to build
the foo-1.2.3-2
On 12/23/06, Steven Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/23/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remember that the CC licences are generally considered non-free by
> Debian standards, so you may have to package the docs separately for
> non-free.
For the docs we use the Creative Co
4 matches
Mail list logo
