On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Till Maas <opensou...@till.name> wrote: > Hi Alex,
Hi Till, > the changes were not unrelated but fixed the build error for pulseview > on Rawhide and extending the build overrides fixed the build errors on > F23 (which you can also read in the changelog). I noticed the changes were zero-day patches. I have added instructions on how to obtain those patches: # Zero-day patches after 0.3.0 release. Extract using: # $ git clone git://sigrok.org/pulseview.git # $ cd pulseview # $ git checkout a1a3656b4e18cb9fc078a51bf4256066ee307620 # $ git format-patch pulseview-0.3.0 It's important to have such instructions so that the origin of the patches can be verified. >> You've done that without any attempt at contacting me. There are > > This is not true, since I tried to contact you via IRC. yes, I have an IRC bouncer server, so I was able to find your question after some grepping. It was posted before dawn in my timezone, so I wouldn't have had a chance to respond anyhow. > If you think that is the best way forward, please do it. But please make > sure that you also restore compliance to the packaging guidelines by > starting the release with 1 and using the %license macro. I have restored your changes, with the appropriate modifications. You're still listed as the author in git, as you're the one who figured it out. Thanks for that. > Also pushing > dependent builds in separate updates is against best practices as this > will lead to broken updates. I haven't been able to stay up-to date with the latest and greatest guidelines in the past several years due to jobs, military training, etc, though I'm always looking for hints on how to improve the process of pushing out these updates. Alex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
