On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
>
> Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:
>
> Some small review. ....
Thanks!
>
> - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically
> generated. ....
That came out since my multimail package on mentors was put online at the
mentors site. The package doesn't have any reverse depends; so no, it doesn't
really need an explicit "-dbg" package anymore.
>
> - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean? I plan to further discuss
other aspects of it with him, yes... I have provided him with the results of
package builds but he hasn't commented...
>
> - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in since
> oldstable)
I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep it
explicitly noted...
> - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related lintian
errors.
> - also, with the drop of the dbg package some overrides can be removed
"overrides"? You mean, in d/rules?
> - please remove the comments from d/watch
I sometimes have relevant info in d/watch file comments, but yes in this case
there's really no need for them...
RJ Clay
j...@rocasa.us
