On 03/12/13 22:19, Graham Inggs wrote:That is fine. I thought I had done that.
> Shouldn't the xprint related symbols have been commented out so we don't
> get the #MISSING warnings?
On 03/13/13 09:46, Graham Inggs wrote:Good. Are you sure you own the complete copyright of that file? I.e.
> I've cleaned up some things, added copyright info for
> custom_mwm_badge.png and updated the changelog.
didn't somebody else have the original copyright?
I saw you dropped them in the mean time. Fine. However, from your story
I understand that motif needs to link to libxft. If you want to be sure
it is linked, please DON'T assume it is pulled in via your depends, but
explicitely depend on it. In general, a depends of your package may
cease to depend on the library (maybe it is optional, or a replacement
is found) and you get strange FTBFS or worse in a case like this, your
package builds different than you intend.
Sounds ok, but I thought originally you created your patch to save on
build time. Do you now think it is worth it to distribute the demos? Oh,
wait, you only mean the source code here. Than I think I like the
"examples" better as name then demos, but I let it up to you.