On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 04:13 +0000, Mathias Gug wrote:
> Review: Needs Fixing
> Thanks for creating a merge proposal.
>
> Looking at the last changelog entry for the last new upstream release (0.12.3+noroms-0ubuntu1) you'll notice that the upstream tarball cannot be used directly as it contains some binary BIOS roms whose sources are not available. Thus we need to repack the upstream tarball before importing it into the archive - thus the +noroms appended to the upstream revision. This is why a bunch of new binary files under pc-bios/ have been added to the branch (line 2326).
>
> There should only be one changelog entry with the revision set to 0.12.4+noroms-0ubuntu1 (ie without ~hallyn1 - but I guess you already knew about that ;)). For the point "Removed the capslock patch..." I'd add a reference to the LP bug number using the notation: LP: #DDDDDD
Thanks for you help - I'm starting a new branch to address these, and
will resubmit that.
> In debian/rules (line ) what does line 1408 mean?:
>
> , := ,
I'm told it's needed to define a variable containing literal ',', which
is dereferenced later using $(,) :)
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 04:13 +0000, Mathias Gug wrote: noroms- 0ubuntu1) you'll notice that the upstream tarball cannot be used directly as it contains some binary BIOS roms whose sources are not available. Thus we need to repack the upstream tarball before importing it into the archive - thus the +noroms appended to the upstream revision. This is why a bunch of new binary files under pc-bios/ have been added to the branch (line 2326). noroms- 0ubuntu1 (ie without ~hallyn1 - but I guess you already knew about that ;)). For the point "Removed the capslock patch..." I'd add a reference to the LP bug number using the notation: LP: #DDDDDD
> Review: Needs Fixing
> Thanks for creating a merge proposal.
>
> Looking at the last changelog entry for the last new upstream release (0.12.3+
>
> There should only be one changelog entry with the revision set to 0.12.4+
Thanks for you help - I'm starting a new branch to address these, and
will resubmit that.
> In debian/rules (line ) what does line 1408 mean?:
>
> , := ,
I'm told it's needed to define a variable containing literal ',', which
is dereferenced later using $(,) :)
thanks,
-serge