Hi,
>Are you OK with the package in the current form? Could you sponsor it? The
>sooner it hits sid, the sooner I can submit a RFS for restic.
it went in sid :)
thanks Dmitry!
G.
Dmitry, Gianfranco,
Are you OK with the package in the current form? Could you sponsor it? The
sooner it hits sid, the sooner I can submit a RFS for restic.
Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2016-12-13 07:59+1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Monday, 12 December 2016 11:09:56 AM AEDT Félix Sipma wrote:
>> From gbp-dch(1):
>>
>> --id-length=N
>> Include N digits of the commit id in the
>> changelog entry. Default is to not include
>>
On Monday, 12 December 2016 11:09:56 AM AEDT Félix Sipma wrote:
> From gbp-dch(1):
>
>--id-length=N
> Include N digits of the commit id in the
> changelog entry. Default is to not include
> any commit ids at all.
>
> So, that's already the
On 2016-12-08 06:35+1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I had a glimpse at the package and it looks good except removed content of
> "gbp.conf" that I'll leave for Félix to fix (if he thinks it necessary).
>
> Félix, in "gbp.conf"
>
>
> [dch]
> id-length= 0
>
>
> is occasionally
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 6:52:04 PM AEDT Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> ...in this case there is no license/copyright issue, at least I can't
> see it
So we are not discussing a generic issue? This particular package did not
have DFSG-repackaging to begin with nor does it need one... :)
Hi again :)
>
>I think "ds" is quite confusing let alone that it matches my initials. ;)
lol
>IMHO DFSG-repacking fits all cases even when we throw away useless files to
>avoid documenting their copyrights. Often you just don't know whether
>excluded content is DFSG compliant or not. And
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 6:02:33 PM AEDT Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> repacking to drop bundled dependencies is sometimes called ds (Debian
> Source) repack, non dfsg (even if nobody ever wrote some documentation for
> this).
I think "ds" is quite confusing let alone that it matches my
Hi Dmitry,
>I believe that should be fairly obvious that we repack to drop all bundled
>dependencies. That's Golang for you where it is common to incorporate all
>dependency libraries into tarball. Throwing away private copies of those
>libraries is important to avoid using 'em accidentally,
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 2:13:08 PM AEDT Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> what is the reason for the repack? non-dfsg files?
> if it is just to skip some tests, I really prefer a debian/clean target,
> and not a repack of the whole source tarball.
> diverging from upstream tarballs has a lot of
On 2016-12-07 16:06+0100, Félix Sipma wrote:
> On 2016-12-07 14:13+, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>> control: owner -1 !
>> control: tags -1 moreinfo
>>>I am looking for a sponsor for "golang-github-minio-minio-go":
>>
>>>2.0.2 is needed to complete the packaging of restic (ITP #846176).
>>
On 2016-12-07 14:13+, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
> control: tags -1 moreinfo
>>I am looking for a sponsor for "golang-github-minio-minio-go":
>
>>2.0.2 is needed to complete the packaging of restic (ITP #846176).
>
> I would like to see it sponsored by the maintainer,
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
>I am looking for a sponsor for "golang-github-minio-minio-go":
>2.0.2 is needed to complete the packaging of restic (ITP #846176).
I would like to see it sponsored by the maintainer, but here something I'm
worried
about:
what is the reason for the
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for "golang-github-minio-minio-go":
golang-github-minio-minio-go - Go library for Amazon S3 compatible cloud
storage
Package: golang-github-minio-minio-go
Version: 2.0.2+dfsg-1
Upstream Author: Minio,
14 matches
Mail list logo
