Re: [balint@balintreczey.hu: Accepted xbmc 2:13.2+dfsg1-2~exp0 (source all amd64) into experimental
Hi David,
2014-09-30 13:35 GMT+02:00 David Weinehall <tao@debian.org>:
> 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.
:-)
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll upload a fixed version soon.
Luckily the content of the package content was OK, I just forgot about
the last update to the changelog.
>
> Also, should the builders even accept packages that has an invalid
> distribution specified (in the most recent changelog entry, that is)?
I think rejecting those during upload would be a good idea.
Cheers,
Balint
>
> 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: