Re: require advice to patch (or not) a package
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 11/2/11 4:14 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
> On 11/02/2011 11:09 AM, Olivier Sallou wrote:
>> So do you think that I should however patch all the perl module pages
>> (quite a lot), or should I leave the warnings ? (and advise upstream
>> author to update his code for later update).
>
> why not both? a patch that resolves the missing descriptions would
> probably be welcomed by any reasonable upstream.
I agree, but my concern is it impacts around 200 files....
>
>
> then you could drop the patch for the next version of the debian
> packaging once it has been adopted by upstream.
>
> --dkg
>
- --
Olivier Sallou
IRISA / University of Rennes 1
Campus de Beaulieu, 35000 RENNES - FRANCE
Tel: 02.99.84.71.95
gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (pgp.mit.edu)
Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=ISvv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: