[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [balint@balintreczey.hu: Accepted xbmc 2:13.2+dfsg1-2~exp0 (source all amd64) into experimental



David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> (2014-09-30):
> 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.

What's in changelog doesn't actually matter; see changes file instead.

You might be interested in things like this:
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542747

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: