Adam,
One additional comment:
Your source tree contains a debian/files. This is an autogenerated file
created
(and deleted) during build. Running sbuild removes it, but to be clean you
should probably remove it from Salsa.
See:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#gener
Adam,
Debian/copyright must specify a license for each entry. The one for debian/*
is missing.
W: bashbro source: missing-field-in-dep5-copyright License [debian/copyright:
10]
N:
N: The paragraph in the machine readable copyright file is missing a field
N: that is required by the specific
Adam,
Thank you for going into detail on these. I find your analysis and examples to
be persuasive.
As I mentioned in a previous email, I think it would be easier to maintain the
Debian package if the packaging repository were converted to the gbp format.
However, doing so is not a requireme
Adam,
Thank you for your response below. I have comments on three subjects.
1.
Some people feel that programs should not be accepted to Debian if they aren’t
unique enough or if they are too ambitious. Although I feel this is an
important question for an upstream developer to ask themselves,
Here is my response to John:
Thanks for the thoughtful and quick response.
It looks like python -m http.server does cover most of what Bashbro has to
offer at the moment.
But there is a big update on the way, adding more functionality and I will
look at your security concerns.
Some of the featu
5 matches
Mail list logo
