Hi again, Joachim Breitner ha scritto: > * There seems to be a consensus for libghc6-*-doc for the doc package > name for new packages. No problem with it. Anyway, just out of curiosity, why is this so? Doc packages seem to be compiler independent: why do they have a compiler dependent name? > * Your watch file does not follow the shape that most package are > using, it seems. But maybe we should switch to what I proposed in the > mail „Re: Hackage vs. uscan (debian/watch) in darcs.d.o repos“ from > 23.11.2009. Marco, did you have a look at that watch line? Is it ok, can > it be improved or simplified? Do you feel like doing another round of > mass-package-updates? :-) So far, I've used the first model proposed in the email you're referring to. Of course, I have no problems with changing it, if needed. > I’m untagging the package until you adressed these issues, ok? I think all this issues are fixed, so I'm releasing again (after the lintian and cowbuilder run). Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it> Pisa, Italy Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature