Hi, First of all, I'm going to take a look at the package and upload it if it's ok (I'll look at the next version you announced :-) ). So if others were planning to do the same, please let me know. First comment: The ITP says there are problems with the copyright notices. From the RFS I understand that these have been solved. It's good to write this in a message to the ITP bug as well, so people reading that don't get the feeling that it's still a problem. The name issue you mentioned in the ITP doesn't seem to be a problem, since there is no trace left in the archive: no package, and nothing depending on it. On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:02:42AM +0200, David Bremner wrote: > Is there a canonical way to revert files that are autogenerated _and_ > shipped in upstream? I guess I could add explicit copy and restore to > debian/rules. Is there a better approach? I think patching won't work > because of the timestamps. You can remove the files in the clean target if they are generated by the build. When generating the diff it will tell you that it is ignoring changes in that file, because it is deleted. That's what you want in that case. It's one way to handle all the junk generated by autoconf as well. But it only works if the build system doesn't need the files, of course. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature