Bug#570664: gcc-snapshot broken watch file; diff to fix is included
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20100117-1
Dear gcc-snapshot maintainers,
The watch file is broken. The diff below fixes the issue.
2c2
< ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-(4\.5[\d\.]*) debian uupdate
---
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/\d\.\d-([\d\.]*) debian uupdate
After the fix:
uscan --verbose
-- Scanning for watchfiles in .
-- Found watchfile in ./debian
-- In debian/watch, processing watchfile line:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/\d\.\d-([\d\.]*) debian uupdate
-- Found the following matching files:
4.1-20080630
4.2-20090325
4.3-20090607
4.3-20090621
4.3-20090628
4.3-20090705
4.3-20090712
4.3-20090719
4.3-20090726
4.3-20090802
4.3-20090809
4.3-20090816
4.3-20090823
4.3-20090830
4.3-20090906
4.3-20090913
4.3-20090920
4.3-20090927
4.3-20091004
4.3-20091011
4.3-20091018
4.3-20091025
4.3-20091101
4.3-20091108
4.3-20091115
4.3-20091122
4.3-20091129
4.3-20091206
4.3-20091213
4.3-20091220
4.3-20091227
4.3-20100103
4.3-20100110
4.3-20100117
4.3-20100124
4.3-20100131
4.3-20100207
4.3-20100214
4.4-20090602
4.4-20090609
4.4-20090616
4.4-20090623
4.4-20090630
4.4-20090707
4.4-20090714
4.4-20090721
4.4-20090728
4.4-20090804
4.4-20090811
4.4-20090818
4.4-20090825
4.4-20090901
4.4-20090908
4.4-20090915
4.4-20090922
4.4-20090929
4.4-20091006
4.4-20091013
4.4-20091020
4.4-20091027
4.4-20091103
4.4-20091110
4.4-20091117
4.4-20091124
4.4-20091201
4.4-20091208
4.4-20091215
4.4-20091222
4.4-20091229
4.4-20100105
4.4-20100112
4.4-20100119
4.4-20100126
4.4-20100202
4.4-20100209
4.4-20100216
4.5-20091001
4.5-20091008
4.5-20091015
4.5-20091022
4.5-20091029
4.5-20091105
4.5-20091112
4.5-20091119
4.5-20091126
4.5-20091203
4.5-20091210
4.5-20091217
4.5-20091224
4.5-20091231
4.5-20100107
4.5-20100114
4.5-20100121
4.5-20100128
4.5-20100204
4.5-20100211
4.5-20100218
4.1-20080630
4.2-20090325
4.3-20100214
4.4-20100216
4.5-20100218
Newest version on remote site is 20100218, local version is 20100215
=> 4.5-20100218 already in package directory
-- Scan finished
Best Regards,
Sindhudweep Sarkar
Reply to: