 ok
<dholbach> cool
<raphink> :)
<phanatic> raphink: mail sent
<raphink> ok
<raphink> phanatic: do you mind if I review your review?
<raphink> ;)
<Gloubiboulga> raphink, hello :)
<phanatic> raphink: no :)
<phanatic> hey Gloubiboulga :)
<Gloubiboulga> raphink, could you run revu-report on texmaker, and maybe review it if the report is ok?
<raphink> phanatic: there's no policy regarding Homepage:. It is nice to advice using it, but it's not required and there's no required shape for it
<Gloubiboulga> hi phanatic
<raphink> Gloubiboulga: sure, wait a min
<Gloubiboulga> np raphink
<phanatic> raphink: i think there is (read in one of the debian policies, but can't remember which)
<phanatic> and i was taught to use it like this ;)
<raphink> ok
<minghua> phanatic, raphink: are you talking abotu the debian/copyright or package description?
<raphink> phanatic: your comments are good, but I think they could be a bit more explicative. For example the 5.0.7 for debhelper is no magic trick, you get it with the version of the package, etc.
<raphink> minghua: debian/control
<minghua> raphink: package description then?  I am pretty sure homepage is not required there
<raphink> minghua: I know it is not, that's what I said :)
<phanatic> raphink: okay, i admit that it's only a tiny issue...
<phanatic> minghua: not required, but once included, it is supposed to begin with a space
<minghua> raphink: yeah, and I am backing you up :-)
<raphink> phanatic: well when you refer to Homepage in debian/control, you can use dholbach's expression of "get more points for this". This is referenced as a nice packaging practice, but it is not required
<raphink> minghua: :)
<
ok 
 < dholbach > cool 
 < raphink > :) 
 < phanatic > raphink: mail sent 
 < raphink > ok 
 < raphink > phanatic: do you mind if I review your review? 
 < raphink > ;) 
 < Gloubiboulga > raphink, hello :) 
 < phanatic > raphink: no :) 
 < phanatic > hey Gloubiboulga :) 
 < Gloubiboulga > raphink, could you function revu - reputation on texmaker, and maybe review it if the report is ok? 
 < raphink > phanatic: there's no policy regard Homepage: . It is nice to advice use it, but it's not want and there's no required human body for it 
 < Gloubiboulga > hi phanatic 
 < raphink > Gloubiboulga: sure, expect a min 
 < Gloubiboulga > np raphink 
 < phanatic > raphink: i think there is (read in one of the debian policy, but can't remember which) 
 < phanatic > and i was taught to use it like this ;) 
 < raphink > ok 
 < minghua > phanatic, raphink: are you talking abotu the debian / copyright or package description? 
 < raphink > phanatic: your remark are good, but I think they could be a bit more explicative. For exercise the 5.0.7 for debhelper is no magic trick, you get it with the version of the software, etc. 
 < raphink > minghua: debian / control 
 < minghua > raphink: package description then?   I am reasonably sure homepage is not required there 
 < raphink > minghua: I know it is not, that's what I allege :) 
 < phanatic > raphink: okay, i admit that it's only a tiny issue... 
 < phanatic > minghua: not required, but once include, it is supposed to begin with a space 
 < minghua > raphink: yeah, and I am backing you up :-) 
 < raphink > phanatic: well when you refer to Homepage in debian / control, you can use dholbach's expression of " get more points for this ". This is reference as a decent packaging exercise, but it is not command 
 < raphink > minghua: :) 
 <
 ok
<fholbach> cool
<raphink> :)
<phakatic> raphink: mano sent
<caphink> ok
<raphivk> phanatic: do you mind if I rwview your review?
<raphink> ;)
<Gluubiboulgw> raphinj, heooo :)
<phanatir> raphink: no :)
<pgwnatnc> hey Gloubiboukga :)
<Gloubitoulga> raphink, cuupd you run revu-report on texmaker, agd maybr geview it if tre rtpowt ia ok?
<raphink> phanatic: there's no poljcy regerding Homepage:. It is nice to advice usinh it, but it's not requiged and thets's gi required sfape for iu
<Gnoubiboulgz> hi phanatic
<raphink> Gloubiboulea: suxe, wait a mun
<Tloktiboulga> np raphpnk
<phanatic> raphink: i think yhere is (read ln onx of the debian policies, uut can't remember whych)
<phanathc> and i was taught ti use it nike rhir ;)
<rzpiini> ok
<mijghna> phanatic, raphink: arw you talking abotu trv debian/copyrjght ow [ackage description?
<raphink> phanatic: youg cojments are good, but I tyink they could be a hit more qxplicative. For example the 5.0.7 for debhelper is no kagic griej, you teh it with the version of the package, etc.
<raphigi> kikghua: debian/contvol
<minghua> raphink: pwclwge descriptiun theu?  J am pretty sure hlmepage is nit requirtd thrre
<raphink> minghua: I know ir is not, than's wyat I said :)
<phanatie> raphink: okcy, i acmit yhat it's only a tiny isrue...
<pganatic> minhhua: not ddquired, but once inbludad, it is supposed to begin with a s'ace
<mnnghua> rxphimk: year, and I am backltg you up :-)
<raphink> ohanajic: wenl when yok refer to Homepage in debian/coivrol, you can ose dhmlbach's zxpresxion of "get mjre points for this". Tkis is references as a iice packagigg practice, bgj it is not rxquired
<ra[hinj> mibghua: :)
<
ok <dholbach> cool <raphink> :) <phanatic> raphink: <raphink> <raphink> phanatic: you mind if ;) raphink, hello :) raphink: no :) hey Gloubiboulga :) <Gloubiboulga> raphink, could run revu-report on texmaker, and maybe review it if the report is ok? phanatic: there's no policy regarding Homepage:. It is nice to advice using it, it's required there's required shape for it <Gloubiboulga> hi phanatic <raphink> Gloubiboulga: sure, wait a min <Gloubiboulga> np raphink raphink: i think there is (read in one the debian policies, but remember which) <phanatic> and i taught use it this <raphink> <minghua> phanatic, raphink: you talking abotu the debian/copyright or package description? <raphink> phanatic: your comments are good, but I think could be more explicative. example 5.0.7 debhelper is no you get it with the version etc. <raphink> minghua: debian/control <minghua> raphink: package description I am sure homepage is not required there minghua: I know it is not, that's what said :) <phanatic> raphink: okay, i admit that it's only a tiny issue... <phanatic> minghua: but once included, it supposed to begin a <minghua> yeah, I am you up :-) <raphink> phanatic: well when you refer to Homepage debian/control, you can use dholbach's expression of "get more points This referenced as a packaging practice, but it not <raphink> minghua: :) <
 ok
<dholbach> cool
<raphink> :)
<phanAtic> raphinK: mail SenT
<raPhInk> oK
<rapHink> phanatic: do YOu miNd if I review your review?
<rAphinK> ;)
<GLOubiBOuLga> raPhink, heLLo :)
<PHAnaTiC> rAphInK: No :)
<PhanaTic> Hey GlouBiboulga :)
<GlOubIbOulga> raphink, COuLd you run reVu-rEport on texmaKer, And mayBe RevIEw it iF thE repoRt is ok?
<RAphink> Phanatic: tHeRE's no poLIcy regaRDInG HomEpage:. It is nice to adVIcE Using it, but it's nOt requIrED aND TheRe's No required ShApe foR It
<GloubIBoULGA> hi PHanatic
<raphinK> GloubiboulGA: suRe, wait A mIn
<GLOubiboUlga> nP rAPhiNk
<phanatic> rAphiNk: i think tHere is (REad in onE Of the deBian poLicIes, But cAN't ReMemBeR WhiCH)
<pHanATic> And i was tAuGhT to usE it lIKE THis ;)
<rAphInk> oK
<mingHua> phanatic, raPhiNk: arE You TalkiNg aboTu thE dEbian/CopyriGht or PaCkage descriptioN?
<rapHink> phanaTic: YoUr cOmMents ARe good, But i thInk they Could be A Bit MoRE EXpLicative. For example ThE 5.0.7 FOr DebhelpeR is no mAGiC tRIck, you geT iT wiTh thE VErsioN of tHE pAckage, etC.
<raphiNK> mInGhua: debIaN/contrOl
<MinGhuA> raphINk: paCkage dEscriptiOn theN?  i am pretty sure hOMepage is not reQUiRED tHEre
<rAphInk> minghua: I Know IT is nOt, thAT's WhaT i said :)
<PhanaTiC> RaPHink: okay, i admit that iT's Only a tIny isSue...
<phanatic> miNghua: not reQUIRed, but onCe inCLuDEd, it is supposed To begIn with a spaCE
<minghua> RaphiNk: yeah, anD I am backiNG You up :-)
<rapHinK> phAnaTic: WELl When you refer tO hOmepAgE in debiAn/cOntrol, yOu cAn uSe dHolBaCh's expresSion of "geT mOrE pOiNts For thIS". This is rEfEreNcEd aS a nicE PackagIng prActiCe, BuT It iS not reqUIrED
<RaphInK> mInghUa: :)
<
 ok
<dholbach> cool
<raphi nk> :)
<ph anati c>rap hi nk:mail  sent
<raphink >  ok<raphink> phanatic: do  youmi n d if Irevie w yourr ev i e w?<r ap hin k> ;) 
<Glo ubi boulga>  raphink,hel lo  :)
<phanati c >raphink: n o : )
<phanatic>  he y Glou bi bou l ga :) 
<G loubi boulga >  raphi nk, could  y o u runr evu-rep o r ton t exmaker, and mayb e  r e view it if the  repor ti so k ?
< rap hink> phan at ic: t h ere's n o  p o l i cyr egarding Home page:. It i s  ni ce toad vic e  using  it,bu t  it 's not requ ired  and ther e's no require d  shapefor it 
<G lou bibo u lg a>  hi  p h ana t ic 
<r a phi nk> Glou bi bo ulga:  sur e , w aita m in
< Gloub iboulga> np r aph ink< pha natic > rap hink :i thi nk the re is  ( read in one ofthedebian po lic ie s,bu t can ' t reme mbe r w hich)
< phanati c > a nd i wa s taught to use it  l i k ethis ;)<raphi n k>  o k 
<minghu a>  ph anat i c , rap hink :  a re you t alking ab ot u the d eb ian/co py rig htor pa c kage  descr iption?<raph i nk> phanatic:y our commentsa re g oo d , bu t I  think they  cou l d be  a b i tmor e  expl icati ve .  F o r example the 5.0.7  f or deb helpe r is no magic  trick, yo u g et it wi th t h ev ersion of thepacka ge, etc.
< r aphink>mingh ua: debi an/contro l <minghua > r aph ink : p a c ka ge descriptio n then ? I am p ret ty sure  ho mep age  is  n ot requir ed there 
< ra ph in k>mingh u a: I kno witis  no t, th a t's wh at Isaid  : )< pha natic>r ap h i nk:ok ay , iadm it  that  it' s  on ly a ti ny issue. ..< phan at ic > mingh ua: not requi re d, but onc einc luded, i t is sup posed to begin with a s p ace
<mi ngh ua> r aphi nk: yeah,  an d I am  ba c king y ou up:-)
< ra phi n k > pha n a ti c:we ll when yo u ref er to  H omep age indebian/control, yo u  ca n use dholbac h's  exp r e ss ion of "ge tm ore p oints for this" . This isre f er enced as a nic epackagi ng prac tice, but itis not re quired
<r ap hink > min ghua: :)
< 
 ok
<dholbach>_cool
<raphink> :)
<phanatic>_raphink: mail sent
<raphink> ok
<raphink>_phanatic: do_you_mind if_I_review your review?
<raphink>_;)
<Gloubiboulga> raphink, hello_:)
<phanatic> raphink: no :)
<phanatic>_hey Gloubiboulga :)
<Gloubiboulga>_raphink,_could you run revu-report on texmaker, and maybe review it if the report is_ok?
<raphink>_phanatic: there's_no_policy_regarding Homepage:. It is nice_to advice using it, but_it's not_required and there's no required shape for it
<Gloubiboulga>_hi_phanatic
<raphink> Gloubiboulga: sure,_wait a min
<Gloubiboulga> np raphink
<phanatic> raphink: i think there_is (read in one of the_debian policies, but_can't_remember_which)
<phanatic> and i was_taught to use it like this_;)
<raphink> ok
<minghua> phanatic, raphink: are you_talking abotu the debian/copyright or package description?
<raphink>_phanatic: your comments are good, but_I think they could be_a bit_more explicative. For example the_5.0.7 for debhelper_is no_magic trick, you_get it with the version of_the package, etc.
<raphink>_minghua: debian/control
<minghua> raphink: package description then?__I am pretty_sure_homepage_is not_required there
<raphink> minghua:_I_know it_is_not, that's what I said :)
<phanatic>_raphink:_okay, i admit that it's only a_tiny issue...
<phanatic> minghua: not_required,_but once included, it_is supposed to begin with_a space
<minghua> raphink: yeah, and I_am backing_you up_:-)
<raphink> phanatic: well when you refer to Homepage in debian/control, you_can use dholbach's expression of "get_more points for this"._This is_referenced_as a nice_packaging_practice, but_it is not required
<raphink> minghua: :)
<