[balint@balintreczey.hu: Accepted xbmc 2:13.2+dfsg1-2~exp0 (source all amd64) into experimental
The latest upload of xbmc seems a bit botched; this is the
changelog in its entirety:
xbmc (2:13.2+dfsg1-2~exp0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
.
*
Now, there is nothing wrong with terse and succinct changelogs,
but I'd say this is a bit *too* terse, and not at all succinct.
Also, should the builders even accept packages that has an invalid
distribution specified (in the most recent changelog entry, that is)?
Filtering out "UNRELEASED" and packages with an empty changelog would
prevent at least some premature uploads.
Kind regards, David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: