On Sat 2022-01-08 21:39:25 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> My understanding of the policy has always been that the source tarball
> shipped in debian must indeed contain all the files in their "preferred
> form of modification" but the fact that the resulting artifact has to be
> rebuilt duri
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote...
> So the debian-generated image is both more policy-compliant and more
> correct. We shouldn't stop building it from source.
Quite frankly, I don't think even it's necessary to stress the policy
here, shipping a "more correct" PNG should be motivation enough. And it
On 8/01/22 20:04, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Control: reopen 993857
Control: retitle 993857 gnupg2: gnupg-module-overview.png is not built from
source
On Wed 2021-12-15 23:40:23 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
Control: tags 993857 pending
Laurent Bigonville wrote...
Could you please drop libr
Control: tags 993857 pending
Laurent Bigonville wrote...
> Could you please drop librsvg2-bin from the build-dependencies?
(...)
Comparing the built packages before and after removing that build
dependency shows no differences, so it should be safe to drop it.
Christoph
signature.asc
Desc
On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 12:13:31 +0200 Laurent Bigonville
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Having librsvg2-bin in the build-dependencies prevent the package to
> build on some architecture (librsvg only builds on architecutres where
> rust is ported to)
>
> Could you please drop librsvg2-bin from the build-depe
Source: gnupg2
Version: 2.2.27-2
Severity: important
Hello,
Having librsvg2-bin in the build-dependencies prevent the package to
build on some architecture (librsvg only builds on architecutres where
rust is ported to)
Could you please drop librsvg2-bin from the build-dependencies?
The BD was a
6 matches
Mail list logo
