Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2013-01-11 17:51:20)
> Before renouncing to a consistent use of the format expressivity for
> documentation of upstream files licence or removal, I would like your
> first reactions about modifying the format towards the direction
> suggested by this pseudo-patch.
[p
Best wishes to all readers for the new year.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> From my point of view we should now discuss first what way to
> prefer: Either the 'Files-Excluded' field or 'License:
> not-shipped-by-debian' should be used and we should decide now
> be
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:17:19AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 29/08/12 07:55, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > When trying to get rid of some get-orig-source
> > scripts I noticed that besided some file removals I need to execute
> > some extra code. This is basically fetching some extra files like
* Simon McVittie , 2012-08-29, 09:17:
IMHO this could be done quite simple if we would enable uscan to call
a script say debian/uscan.hook (feel free to propose a better name).
This is a security flaw if you want uscan to be safe to use on
untrusted source (e.g. in DEHS). It seems that uscan tri
Le 29 août 2012 10:17, "Simon McVittie" a écrit :
>
> On 29/08/12 07:55, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > When trying to get rid of some get-orig-source
> > scripts I noticed that besided some file removals I need to execute
> > some extra code. This is basically fetching some extra files like
> > source
On 29/08/12 07:55, Andreas Tille wrote:
> When trying to get rid of some get-orig-source
> scripts I noticed that besided some file removals I need to execute
> some extra code. This is basically fetching some extra files like
> sources for documentation, uncompressed JS files etc from external
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
