On 23/01/09 at 00:30 +, Stuart Prescott wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> > -must contain detailed information how
> the
> > -repackaged source was obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
> > +must be documented. Detailed
> > information
> on how the
> > +repackaged source was obtained, and o
Hi all,
> -must contain detailed information how
the
> -repackaged source was obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
> +must be documented. Detailed information
on how the
> +repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced must be
provided in
> debian/copyright.
tags 492661 + pending
thanks
On 28/07/08 at 02:04 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.0
> Severity: minor
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> while discussing repackaging upstream sources with Stuart, he noticed
> that the following phrasing is a bit bogus, from §6
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.0
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hi,
while discussing repackaging upstream sources with Stuart, he noticed
that the following phrasing is a bit bogus, from §6.7.8.2:
| A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
|
| 1. must contain detailed information how the repackaged sou
4 matches
Mail list logo
