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

Re: [SoB] Re: Osmctools, [ITP,RFS and more]


Thanks a lot for your help.

> I've checked this and noticed you did some changes in a new changelog
> entry.  This would lead to the consequence that the ITP bug you try to
> close in 0.1-1 will not be closed because only the last changelog
> paragraph is regarded.  I'd also suggest to simply drop the whole 0.1-2
> paragraph because osmctools 0.1-1 never has hit the Debian mirror (or
> did I missed anything).  Please just update the time stamp of 0.1-1.
I understand, it's corrected.

> I would like to have a record for the sponsored packages to have some
> sign that the SoB effort is useful.
It's done.

> In principle this is OK but we somehow need some versioning and if
> anyhow possible a watch file to spot new versions.  This might be hard
> in this case (I have not checked upstream).  Perhaps it might even be
> possible to convince upstream to create some common versioned tarball?
> In any case you need to create a get-orig-source target in debian/rules
> that would enable anybody to reproduce the source tarball.
I have some troubles with watch file and gitorious.
I asked to upstream dev to create tag
(https://gitorious.org/osm-c-tools/osmctools/trees/0.1), but it's
doesn't work.
I have to dig on this point.

> BTW, please remove the dh-make boilerplate form the debian/rules file
> which claims that it is a "Sample debian/rules that uses debhelper." You
> rules file is no example but rather a rules file creating a specific
> package.  The whole comment is just not true.
It's done.

Best regards.

Reply to: