On Fri, 2018-03-30 at 18:46 -0500, Nathan Willis wrote: > On further reflection, though ... should this actually be split into > two: "RFN violation" for fonts that need to be renamed due to the > upstream RFN (when the build does not produce bit-identical binaries) > plus "RFN missing" for packages where the RFN notice has disappeared? I assume the RFN being missing is also a violation of the RFN clause? If so then I think it should be enough to just have the one template and usertag and make sure it covers both instances. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part