On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Santiago Vila wrote:
> So, suppose that someone has a package requiring the above for "gbp
> buildpackage" to work.
> Does the package have a disclaimer somewhere saying "plain dpkg-buildpackage
> is not supported
> here" or something alike?
You can document any discrepancy
El 26/12/22 a las 17:30, Raphael Hertzog escribió:
Hello,
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, Santiago Vila wrote:
For example, this one:
I have just imported version 2.10-2. Now dpkg-buildpackage
does not work because it expects some timestamps to be the ones in the
orig.tar.gz where upstream maintainer
Hello,
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, Santiago Vila wrote:
> For example, this one:
>
> I have just imported version 2.10-2. Now dpkg-buildpackage
> does not work because it expects some timestamps to be the ones in the
> orig.tar.gz where upstream maintainer already ran autoconf and friends.
>
> I know
Hi. I'm working on this now.
After considering available options, I'm going to host it under my
"sanvila" namespace for now.
My work in progress is here:
https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/hello-alpha
But there are some technical and philosophical issues unsolved yet.
For example, this one:
I
Source: hello
Version: 2.10-1
Severity: wishlist
The "hello" package is the sample package that we want to use everywhere
in documentation. Thus it should be really a model for all packages.
Unfortunately hello is not maintained in a git repository. It should
really be on
5 matches
Mail list logo
