On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:32, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Got it. Thanks. One last question:
>
> Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any
> upstream changes?
> I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package
> management tools.
if it's just for debia
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > debian/README.Debian-source
> might be good too, but given a tarball is (usually) repacked for legal
> reasons, d/copyright seems a better place since "it's the file where
> legal stuff is"
that is true, BUT debian/copyright is to describe terms and con
Got it. Thanks. One last question:
Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any
upstream changes?
I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package
management tools.
--
anatoly t.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Quoting "anatoly techtonik" :
Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and
manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release?
In this case the maintainer (I) was too lazy/sloppy/whatever
to document it properly or add a debian/rules target to do
the repac
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:06, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright
>
> well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in
> contrib or non-free. For details on what was done
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright
well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in
contrib or non-free. For details on what was done to sources I usually
use (when I do not forget ;))
debian/README.
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 02:00 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wr
Twas brillig at 20:51:49 25.10.2010 UTC+03 when techto...@gmail.com did
gyre and gimble:
at> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked
at> and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new
at> release?
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/trac-b
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What dfsg suffix in package version is for?
In
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for?
>>> In trac-bitten to be exact.
>>
>> It means that the tarball wa
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for?
>> In trac-bitten to be exact.
>
> It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements.
>
> [1] http://www.debian.or
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> What dfsg suffix in package version is for?
> In trac-bitten to be exact.
It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements.
[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
--
Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin
12 matches
Mail list logo
