Re: RFS: docutils-writer-manpage 0.1~svn.r5690-2, urgency=medium
Piotr Ożarowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> * 0.1~svn.r5690-1 was never uploaded to Debian, please mark it as
> UNRELEASED or (and I prefer this one, BTW) merge -2 and -1
Okay, I will release 0.1~svn.r5690-3 and mark previous releases of the
same version as ‘UNRELEASED’.
> * add minimum required runtime version to python-docutils: >= 0.5-3
Done. Just so I'm sure that I understand, this is because this package
now depends on a ‘python-docutils’ built with ‘python-support’, yes?
> * what did you have to change in order to bump Standards-Version to
> 3.8.1? (changelog doesn't mention it)
> * lintian 2.2.9 only informs about
> extended-description-is-probably-too-short, please remove all
Aren't we supposed to release packages that are lintian clean, even to
the ‘info’ level?
> * BTW, you have some patches on debian-python ML that make debian/rules a
> little bit nicer in this package
I've been working on these for a new upstream version, but will roll
them into this new release first. Done.
\ “Holy unrefillable prescriptions, Batman!” —Robin |