Re: [SoB] Re: Osmctools, [ITP,RFS and more]
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 05:14:03PM +0200, Blanc Pierre wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your help.
It's fun to help if the response comes as quickly as yours. :-)
> > 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.
May be asking at firstname.lastname@example.org might lead to some
enlightment. I did not packaged something originating from gitorious
but when in trouble with watch files debian-mentors was always helpful.
> > 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.
Just ping me once you might have solved the watch file issue or at least
have created a get-orig-source target.