[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#660162: RFS: tack/1.07-2

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> * Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com>, 2012-02-26, 17:49:
>>  * Fix "hyphen-used-as-minus-sign" warning from lintian.
> This patch...
>>  * New patch 03-allow-echoing-compilation-commands.patch, which enables
>>   printing of compilation commands by default.
> ...and this patch have Forwarded headers pointing to gmane. Could you use
> links to the "official" web archive (i.e.,
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/) instead? Not every one likes
> gmane (e.g. I cannot stand its UI); lists.gnu.org would be more neutral.
> (I won't be insistent about this, feel free to ignore me.)

I was actually thinking maybe I should link to the official GNU
archives, but then I noticed what they did to anything resembling an
email address and decided not to do that -- gmane's mangling is at
least *almost* reversible.

> Also, if you wanted the patch headers to follow DEP-3, then you probably
> need to remove stuff like "diff -Naurp tack.orig/tack.1 tack/tack.1" or
> "Index: tack-1.06/tack.1". Otherwise such lines could[0] be misinterpreted
> by a parser as a part of patch header.
> [0] I said "could" because the specification is far being clear (or maybe I
> should say s/clear/unambiguous/).

Well, *quilt* certainly doesn't misinterpret these lines thus. I don't
really feel like removing things like this merely because of what
DEP-3 neglects to specify; it really seems more like an issue with
DEP-3 to me.

(Also, patch #03 was originally produced by dpkg-source; I did remove
some templates, but kept the overall format the same. I suppose
*maybe* I should have left that line of three dashes?)

If and when DEP-3 were to be clarified on this point, I'd be happy to
change the patches to comply with it.

-- Samuel Bronson

Reply to: