Hello Thomas,
Yes, I mean "arch independent" due to the fact that it is written in bash, an
interpreted language.
What I am pointing out is that anyone who downloads the "binary" deb package has all the
"source" that I do. But, again, I understand the rules for a separate source package,
and I'll comply with that.
Lloyd
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:37:56 -0600, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Original message -----
Thanks for pointing out the need for a source package (which seems odd
for a package that is 100% source already, but I understand this is a
rule.)
Lloyd
What do you mean "100% source"? I think you want to say "arch independant" no?
I think you urgently need to read the Debian developper manual and New maintainer guide, the come
back here when you believe that your package matches the policy, and what is written in these
documents. Nobody will/can sponsor a binary package (yes, a .deb is said to be a binary even if it
is arch indep.).
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/op.vd47aml7x1l...@localhost
