Re: gnucobol/2.2-1

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Ludwin Janvier wrote: > * use tarball, remove stuff & build This seems simplest. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: gnucobol/2.2-1

Upstream won't remove generated files from their tarball. But they said I can either download the source from their VCS (where there is no generated files)(svn on SF.net). Which option should I prefer: * use tarball, remove stuff & build * use svn-buildpackage (I may have to remove stuffs too

Re: gnucobol/2.2-1

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Ludwin Janvier wrote: > * I disabled the generation of the *-dbgsym packages with override_dh_strip > because there was no debug symbol. Is this an issue? It would be nice if the missing debug symbols issue could be fixed, but it isn't essential to do that. > * T

gnucobol/2.2-1

Hello, I submitted my package "gnucobol" (formerly open-cobol). Thanks to Adam Borowski for accepting it. To write the package, I had to make some choices, and I'd like to validate them with someone more experienced: * I disabled the generation of the *-dbgsym packages with override_dh_strip beca

Bug#895557: marked as done (RFS: gnucobol/2.2-1 [ITA])

Your message dated Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:09:40 +0200 with message-id <20180412160940.kblsejwe66epd...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#895557: RFS: gnucobol/2.2-1 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #895557, regarding RFS: gnucobol/2.2-1 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#895557: RFS: gnucobol/2.2-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnucobol" * Package name: gnucobol Version : 2.2-1 Upstream Author : Simon Sobisch, Ron Norman, Edward Hart, Sergey Kashyrin, Dave Pitts and Brian Tiffin * URL