Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

> >In my view evil-paredit-el is ready to be uploaded, bar `dch -r`. Sorry, was out-of-networking. Done 'debchange -r' and pushed as 8d9c4d3. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

control: owner -1 ! >In my view evil-paredit-el is ready to be uploaded, bar `dch -r`. ping, G.

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

control: noowner -1 control: tag -1 +confirmed -moreinfo Dear Dmitry, In my view evil-paredit-el is ready to be uploaded, bar `dch -r`. Thanks. -- Sean Whitton

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

Hello, On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 11:27:06AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > > > Relaxed dependency. Works for me. > > I had at upstream's commit history and it seems that they have added > > compatibility code so that it works with various versions of paredit. > > Which commit? 86d8ab33c,

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

Hello, On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 11:27:06AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > You should definitely forward the dependency relaxation upstream: they > > shouldn't be declaring so tight a dependency if they have the > > compatibility code. > > It is not problem for MELPA, melpa ships 25beta. Who

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

> >> 1. In d/copyright, the license should be called "Expat" not "MIT" since > >>"MIT" is ambiguous between several different licenses. > > > > Is it true? AFAIC, there are 3 versions of BSD (2,3,4 clauses) and only > > one MIT. > Debian uses Expat instead of MIT. There are unfortunately

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

> > Relaxed dependency. Works for me. > I had at upstream's commit history and it seems that they have added > compatibility code so that it works with various versions of paredit. Which commit? > You should definitely forward the dependency relaxation upstream: they > shouldn't be declaring so

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

Hello, On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 03:06:41AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > 2. evil-paredit.el declares a dependency on paredit version "25beta". > >But we have version 24 in Debian.[1] Have you tested that it works with > >paredit 24? I have noticed that the current generation of Elisp

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

On Friday, July 01 2016, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: >> 1. In d/copyright, the license should be called "Expat" not "MIT" since >>"MIT" is ambiguous between several different licenses. > > Is it true? AFAIC, there are 3 versions of BSD (2,3,4 clauses) and only > one MIT. Debian uses Expat instead

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

> 1. In d/copyright, the license should be called "Expat" not "MIT" since >"MIT" is ambiguous between several different licenses. Is it true? AFAIC, there are 3 versions of BSD (2,3,4 clauses) and only one MIT. > 2. evil-paredit.el declares a dependency on paredit version "25beta". >But

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

control: owner -1 ! control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Dmitry, Here is a preliminary review (haven't tried installing and using yet, due to item (2) below). 1. In d/copyright, the license should be called "Expat" not "MIT" since "MIT" is ambiguous between several different licenses. 2.

Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "evil-paredit-el" * Package name: evil-paredit-el Version : 0.0.2-1 Upstream Author : Roman Gonzalez * Url :