On 05/05/2014 06:16 AM, Emilien Klein wrote:

> It's not about being more strict.
> It's about explicitly mentioning a requirement that is not clear to a
> number of our co-packagers.

FWIW, if the exclusions in debian/copyright (those mentioned on the
wiki) interact properly with uscan, and if the uscan-based repackaging
is deterministic (e.g. run it twice on the upstream tarball and get the
same repacked tarball, byte-for-byte), and if all of our packages have
valid debian/watch files, so that the normal package update is uscan,
then i can live with this policy.

I personally don't think it seems necessary, but if it encourages people
to use standard tools, and to ensure that those tools are in good
working order, and to document our relationships with upstream, then it
could be a good thing overall.


PS i haven't tested all of the conditions i mentioned above, i'm just
hypothesizing and haven't had time to investigate further.  sorry for my

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to