Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]
Sorry for the long delay.
Nothing to review yet, because there are some open questions.
Am 20.04.2016 um 23:16 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
Is it this one?
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813485>
I exactly followed all instructions from
<http://mentors.debian.net/sponsor/rfs-howto> and/or
<https://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS> and still don’t know, where my
mistake was.
not sure, I don't know why a new bug hasn't been opened.
BTW there should be two bugs, not a single one, and there are automatic
scripts that correlates them by blocking the ITP by the RFS one.
can you please try again?
I am going to do so, but to avoid further confusion, some questions:
1. My ITP bug seems to be correct.
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813485>
On the same site, you can see my try of an RFS bug, I sent it to
<submit@bugs.debian.org> with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1
[ITP]". So the address is correct, but the subject should have just been
"RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]", or?
2. What exactly shall I do now? Write a new message with correct
address, subject and same content as in the first try? Or reply to an
existing message so that all mails are in the same thread? And what to
do with further mails – reply normal or the this new RFS try?
Omitting -O3 yields in making a debug version (equal to -O0) on my
system. By default, the make file shall produce a release build, and by
testing I found out that O2 and O3 are best compared to the alternatives
(e. g. Os).
Ok?
no.
man dh_strip
(snip)
you have to produce debug builds with -g and so on.
dh_strip extracts the symbols from the binaries, producing a debug-symbols-free binary
When now someone downloads the sources from Github and just builds them
with a simple make command, he gets the debug version. Can I somehow
influence this behavior without getting trouble with the rules for
packaging?
public domain
it was fine
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
just be sure to mention it correctly on the copyright file
https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License%3A%20unlicense/page_0
Shall the license keyword be public-domain like in my link or unlicense
like in yours?
Reply to: