Hi, Am Sonntag, den 29.06.2014, 17:53 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson: > > the problem is that patching it out is not enough. According to the > > general interpretaion, Debian must not distribute the file. So we need > > to remove it from the tarball. > > I must say that I've never agreed with this interpretation; I think it's > unnecessary busywork as long as the files are legally distributable (so > no sourceless GPLed files, say). But since I'm only working on this to > unblock something else rather than because I have a personal attachment > to it, I don't really want to spend time debating it here, so sure. Same here. A few months ago I raised the topic on -devel, in order to get a definite statement from the ftp-masters, and they said that the above is their interpretation, so I’ll live with it. > I've pushed further changes to use cdbs's upstream tarball repackaging > code in the meantime. I'd certainly prefer to use uscan once it works. > Let me know what you think of the approach I took. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgi-bin/darcsweb.cgi?r=pkg-haskell/haskell-shake;a=commitdiff;h=20140629165131-147b7-6342159423d7ca06488ef941e6e331c2d7090de1 I never worked with the cdbs repackaging, but it seems that the features are orthogonal. So i’m fine with this. > > Unrelated: How useful is the stand-alone shake tool? Is it worth having > > it in a module of its own? > > To be honest I'm not really sure. I mostly just included it because it > was there; it's not needed for hoogle. Would you rather I removed it? In that case I’d rather remove it until someone shouts for it. You know, lazy evaluation and such :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part