On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I completely agree, but what is the tradeoff between forcing upstream to
> release
> something that might be broken or untested and having two debian patches?
Of course one can't force upstream to make a release and of course
upstre
Hi Paul,
>Either way is fine, but I generally subscribe to the "release early,>release
>often" principle. Releasing also benefits the rest of the Free
>Software community, as Debian has promised to do. Of course it is
>completely up to upstream as to when they do releases.
I completely agree, b
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 08:00 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Paul, upstream fixed all the issues, so the next version will drop
> all our patches.
Excellent.
> I hope we can avoid pushing upstream to release, right?
Either way is fine, but I generally subscribe to the "release early,
re
>Agreed, getting upstream to fix them and start using these tools is
>the best option.
Hi Paul, upstream fixed all the issues, so the next version will drop all our
patches.
I hope we can avoid pushing upstream to release, right?
let me know,
cheers,
Gianfranco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Paul
> I opened upstream issue 505
> https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd/issues/505
>Could you also suggest removing the manual page from git and tarballs
>so it is always built from source?
I just noticed Matt here is also upstream, bad me I didn't check :)
>Personally I'd suggest upstream
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I opened upstream issue 505
> https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd/issues/505
Could you also suggest removing the manual page from git and tarballs
so it is always built from source?
> I see them here
> https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd/
Hi Paul,
>All good points Harlan. I also won't be sponsoring this.
thanks to you too!
(now we have the ack)
>That tool doesn't appear to be run at build time to generate the>manual page,
>which means that if downstream folks patch the command
>they won't get an updated manual page. I'd strongl
Ack.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, at 11:29, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>
>
> Hi Harlan!
>
> (ccing Mikhail so he can ack/nack the GPL-2 to GPL-2+ change)
>
>
>
> >The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
> >to GPL-2+ for the files under debian/. Matching them to ups
Hi Harlan!
(ccing Mikhail so he can ack/nack the GPL-2 to GPL-2+ change)
>The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
>to GPL-2+ for the files under debian/. Matching them to upstream is
>best practice, to be sure, but to do so needs the permission of the
>authors
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> Thank you for your work on the s3cmd package. I'm not able to sponsor
> your package at this time, but I've done a review for you to help fix up
> a couple of nitpicks while you wait.
All good points Harlan. I also won't be sponsori
Harlan, thanks for the review.
I'm happy to have any of my trivial contributions under debian/ be GPL-2+.
I removed a patch from debian/patches that fixed up manpage typos. The
manpage is automatically generated. I'll look into updating the generator
to escape the errors for a future release.
Hello Gianfranco!
Thank you for your work on the s3cmd package. I'm not able to sponsor
your package at this time, but I've done a review for you to help fix up
a couple of nitpicks while you wait.
The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
to GPL-2+ for the files un
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "s3cmd"
* Package name: s3cmd
Version : 1.5.2-1
Upstream Author : 2007-2015 TGRMN Software - http://www.tgrmn.com - and
contributors
* URL : https://github.com/s3tools/
13 matches
Mail list logo
