UVF exception request: ttf-alee (6.4 to 7.1)

[atie]

On Friday 24 February 2006 17:13, Ming Hua wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:41:58PM -0600, atie wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > Malone bug : 6439
> > ttf-alee 7.0 fixed this bug, but 7.0 had a bug too. Ask to bring in
> > ttf-alee 7.1.
>
> I think generally this is a good idea to fix these broken defoma hints,
> and the changelog looks safe.  I would like to agree with this
> exception, but see my comments below.
>
> [changelog snipped]
>
> > diffstat:
>
> [some diffstats snipped]
>
> Begin from here:
> >  debian/ttf-alee.postinst.debhelper                              |    6
> >  debian/ttf-alee.prerm.debhelper                                 |    8
> >  debian/ttf-alee/DEBIAN/conffiles                                |    1
> >  debian/ttf-alee/DEBIAN/control                                  |   21
> >  debian/ttf-alee/DEBIAN/md5sums                                  |   11
> >  debian/ttf-alee/DEBIAN/postinst                                 |   26
> >  debian/ttf-alee/DEBIAN/prerm                                    |   10
> >  debian/ttf-alee/etc/defoma/hints/ttf-alee.hints                 |   79
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/doc/ttf-alee/README.Debian            |   52
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/doc/ttf-alee/changelog.gz             |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/doc/ttf-alee/copyright                |   23
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/EunBandal.ttf     |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/EunBangwool.ttf   |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/EunGuseul.ttf     |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/EunGuseulMono.ttf |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/Eunjin.ttf        |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/EunjinNakseo.ttf  |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/[0b0d-c00ky].ttf  |binary
> >  debian/ttf-alee/usr/share/fonts/truetype/alee/[0x0e-c00ky].ttf  |binary
>
> Why are these file in the diffstat?  They are apparenly generated files
> during the build process, and shouldn't be in the source package at all.
> Is this simply a mistake when generating the diffstat?
Thanks for explaining, yes I made 7.1 binary package by myself before sending 
this mail, then used it I think that's why. I will do better next time. :) 

>
> >  35 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 9599 deletions(-)
>
> Ming
> 2006.02.24

-- 
rgds,
Atie