Bug#929467: marked as done (RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP])

Your message dated Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:49:14 +0200 with message-id <20190605134914.ga23...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#929467: RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #929467, regarding RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the pr

Bug#929467: RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP]

On Wed, Jun 05, 01:40, Adam Borowski wrote > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > > v3 is pushed out now and contains > > a simple debian/rules file which fully relies on dh. Besides > > dh_auto_configure I also had to override dh_autoreconf for reasons > > explained in the

Bug#929467: RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP]

On Wed, Jun 05, 10:41, wf...@niif.hu wrote > > I also had to override dh_autoreconf for reasons explained in the > > commit message. > > It isn't a packaging issue, I just wonder: why do you wrap configure? > The usual approach to making it available is distributing it (and not > requiring Autoco

Bug#929467: RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP]

Andre Noll writes: > I also had to override dh_autoreconf for reasons explained in the > commit message. It isn't a packaging issue, I just wonder: why do you wrap configure? The usual approach to making it available is distributing it (and not requiring Autoconf to build the software from the d