Re: guile-oops
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:26:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <frankie@debian.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >>>> So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it properly,
> >>>> and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a
> >>>> non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops.
> >>>>
> >>>> The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I do
> >>>> in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away?
> >>> You have to restart debian version by -1.
> >> Why? I really don't see why this should be necessary.
> > I saw currente release in sid is 1.0.2-2.3, so the choice is
> > among 1.0.3-1 or 1:1.0.2-1, katie will not accept a new .orig file for a non -1
> > release, AFAIK.
>
> katie accepts new tarballs for all debian revisions (use the -sa switch
> for dpkg-genchanges to get a fitting .changes file). As the thing was
> packaged natively, there is no other guile-oops_1.0.2.orig.tar.gz in
> archive, so i don't see a problem there.
>
Yep, I missed the -sa feature...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: