It appears that my package of fossil-scm
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182

is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774
mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later
package from lavandero is that he/she added

"make -j1 bld bld/headers"

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears that my package of fossil-scm
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182
> is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774
> mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later
> package from lavandero is that he/she added
> "make -j1 bld bld/headers"
>

- Your package uses an HTML file instead of a plain text license
- The LICENSE is included in the source distribution
- Because make -j1 bld/bldheaders wasn't present, your package had a race
condition when building with parallel jobs (this has been fixed upstream)
- "fossil" is the upstream name, not fossil-scm
- If you check the AUR comments, I cover all of dis and offer my pkg to you or
whoever is willing (and fossil-scm gets scrapped)

On 02/01/2011 07:24 PM, Andres Perera wrote:

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Nathan Owens<ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:

It appears that my package of fossil-scm
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182
is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774
mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later
package from lavandero is that he/she added
"make -j1 bld bld/headers"


- Your package uses an HTML file instead of a plain text license
- The LICENSE is included in the source distribution
- Because make -j1 bld/bldheaders wasn't present, your package had a race
condition when building with parallel jobs (this has been fixed upstream)
- "fossil" is the upstream name, not fossil-scm
- If you check the AUR comments, I cover all of dis and offer my pkg to you or
whoever is willing (and fossil-scm gets scrapped)
If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if
you don't want it. Either way works.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if you
> don't want it. Either way works.

Cool, I've disowned it

On 02/01/2011 07:30 PM, Andres Perera wrote:

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Nathan Owens<ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:

If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if you
don't want it. Either way works.

Cool, I've disowned it

Are you sure you don't want it? I don't want to be rude or anything.
To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you sure you don't want it? I don't want to be rude or anything.
> To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182

Yep, I'm sure

I forgot I even had it. You updated to the latest snapshot and I wasn't even
aware of its existance.

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
> To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182

Removed, thanks.

reassign 481129 debian-policy
merge 481129 671503
thanks

On 2012-05-17 07:48, Michal Suchanek wrote:

Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:

Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?

It's 4 years later.

Sorry, forgot that I filed the bug already. It's quite some time.



Merging the reports then.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FB52BC3.4090902@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4FB52BC3.4090902@gmail.com