Re: RFS: yajl (updated package)
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 04:29:18 am George Danchev wrote:
> > > Dear mentors,
> > Hi,
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.6+git20090925-1
> > > of my package "yajl".
> > >
> > > It builds these binary packages:
> > > libyajl-dev - Yet Another JSON Library - development files
> > > libyajl-doc - Yet Another JSON Library - library documentation
> > > libyajl1 - Yet Another JSON Library
> > > libyajl1-dbg - Yet Another JSON Library - debugging symbols
> > > yajl-tools - Yet Another JSON Library - tools
> > >
> > > The package appears to be lintian clean.
> > >
> > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yajl
> > > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian
> > > unstable main contrib non-free - dget
> > >
> > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yajl/yajl_1.0.6+git200
> > >90925-1 .dsc
> > >
> > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> > Thanks for your work, but I don't see much of gain to upload a VCS
> > snapshot, which doesn't bring anything more than extending already
> > existing enumeration (yajl_gen.*). I also saw that one of your
> > patches was accepted upstream, but we already have that applied for
> > the package currently found in sid, so that does not make any
> > difference with respect to uploading a new package to sid. There are
> > no any critical bugs nor appealing new features, so I doubt that
> > would worth buildd's time and users installing it as well. So, I
> > think we should wait for 1.0.6 release instead and be fairly
> > conservative, which is a good thing to do with library packages. Is
> > that fine with you?
> If it were just a matter of upstream applying one of my patches I'd
> agree, but the upload has a little more than that.
> The last version uploaded to Debian was 1.0.5. This version, 1.0.6,
> fixes how the tools parse options (you can use more than one option at a
> time), json_reformat returns an error on invalid input, and the library
> returns an error if you give it invalid floating point values.
Yeah, I only diff'ed library source itself, and apparently I forgot to have a
look at reformatter and verify tools, so you are correct that they are
> After upstream released 1.0.6, I poked him again about the non-free RFC
> and he removed it. So the choice was between another dfsg tarball or a
> VCS snapshot of 1.0.6 + 1 commit. I opted for the snapshot.
Blah, the upstream ChangeLog in your 1.0.6+git20090925-1 source package and
upstream site still proudly lists 1.0.5 version, so I didn't actually realized
that 1.0.6 has been released. That does not appear to be very easy upsteam ;-)
> Does that justify an upload?
Well, eventually it does, let me have another look at it these days.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>