Bug#991118: RFS: openarc/1.0.0~beta3+dfsg-1~exp1
Hi David
On 7/25/21 11:04 AM, David Bürgin wrote:
> For all of your items I will comment ‘I did it just like in opendkim and
> opendmarc’, but let’s go through them.
:)
> According to the documentation, this is a valid way of specifying the
> licence.
re formatting: you're right. however, I think the specification is
generally interpreted in the way that when you have multiple file
blocks, you'd use (multiple) distinct license blocks. you're certainly
not the only one doing it "the other way", but it's the first I've seen
it that way in all the years.
for m4: unrelated to the formatting, (just to reiterate as it seems to
have gone unnotices), you do not have to list it in the first place
(thus decluttering d/copyright a bit).
anyhow - up to you, I'd sponsor the package regardless which way you
choose :)
>> * did you consider using 'wrap-and-sort -bast'?
>
> I hadn’t heard of this before. It doesn’t really seem important to me to
> be honest, but I can apply it if that’s preferred.
it's not important, but super nice when you use git (keeps diffs
smaller/faster to read).
> I will update the package and reupload soon.
great, let me know and I'm happy to sponsor it.
Regards,
Daniel
Reply to: