> >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
control: owner -1 !
>In my view evil-paredit-el is ready to be uploaded, bar `dch -r`.
ping,
G.
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
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, 6eea86
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 woul
> >> 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 man
> > 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
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
>
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 o
> 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
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. evil-par
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 : https://github.com/roman/evil-paredit
* Licenses
12 matches
Mail list logo
