Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload

2016-07-28 Thread Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
[snip] > Use of the machine readable copyright format is entirely optional. It's > encouraged, thus the lintian check, but it's not a problem if it's not > machine readable. I must admit I tend to forget this because I prefer structured things, but this is of course totally right. -- Una vez

Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload

2016-07-28 Thread Sandro Knauß
Hey Dmitry, > On Debian this should be nodejs rather that node (see #614907). Oh thanks for this notice. But changing the node -> nodejs results now in another lintian warning: W: qtwebchannel-examples: script-not-executable usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/ examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js

Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload

2016-07-27 Thread Sandro Knauß
Hey, Maybe we should use gobby for our uptodate TODO list (install the package named gobby). I used now gobby.debian.org/Teams/KDE/qtwebengine. I think than we will follow the normal qt package rules and create a example, doc and doc-html packages to be consistant. My answers about merging

Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload

2016-07-26 Thread Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
On martes, 26 de julio de 2016 7:33:54 P. M. ART Simon Quigley wrote: [snip] > > - Linking them, as long as they are in the same package, should be ok. > > It's > > simply to do too. > > I'm unfamiliar with how this would be done, and I'm curious how. > > debian/patches ? rm all except one, use