Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
From: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:29:09 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] Yicv9exxb1yXOjCk@an3as.eu>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] YiUYybMfFxOcJb7A@xanadu.blop.info>
References: <[🔎] YiUYybMfFxOcJb7A@xanadu.blop.info>

Hi,

no need to file the suggested bug reports against

Am Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
>    pngmeta

Fixed and adopted by Debian Phototools team.

>    pngnq

Fixed and adopted by Debian Phototools team.

>    libimage-metadata-jpeg-perl

Fixed and adopted by Debian Perl team.

>    pixelize

Fixed and adopted by Debian Phototools team.

All smell removed from those packages (hopefully).

>    src2tex

I consider to move this to Debian TeX team and fix issues
similarly.

Kind regards

     Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Reply to:

References:
- proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
  - From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Next by Date: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Previous by thread: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Next by thread: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread