Andrew SB wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Cory K.<[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is mostly a question for AndrewSB. >> >> I'm wondering if there's any reason why a BZR branch set up for Debian >> packaging couldn't be considered an upstream? (as this is a native >> package and we do it in Studio) >> >> If there is nothing glaring, I'm inclined to merge the two to reduce >> some of the redundancy. We would do all our work there and I suspect the >> build system would just ignore the other files/folders. >> >> > > No reason at all. I always though it was a bit redundant. None of the > other files will be installed to the binary or end up on the user's > system. In fact, having that stuff in the source package is probably a > good thing as it would contain the complete one-canvas source SVGs. We > could even add render_bitmap.py to the build process so that the > package it truly "built from source." > > We should do go ahead and do this after the release...
As of now, the render_bitmap.py /has/ to be run manually. Ted Gould would like figure out how to whole thing could be on xvfb, so it'd run on a buildd. That will come later. So yeah. This will be my next project after 0.50 is released and makes it into the archive.\ -Cory K. -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
