Re: RFS: saxonhe/9.4.0.7.dfsg-2
On 05/07/2014 11:25 PM, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:19 AM, tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2014 12:42 PM, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This is a gentle reminder that I'm still looking for a sponsor to
>>> upload this package.
>>> Here is a link [1] to upstream bug this update addresses.
>>>
>>> [1] https://saxonica.plan.io/issues/1944
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Eugene Zhukov <jevgeni.zh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I removed one property configuration enabling Java 5 support, but
>>>> misbehaving with Java 8.
>>>> This should help debugging #745091.
>>>> Here is the changelog:
>>>>
>>>> saxonhe (9.4.0.7.dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=low
>>>>
>>>> * Remove some Java 5 needed property, invalid for Java 8.
>>>> * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.5.
>>>>
>>>> svn+ssh://alioth.debian.org/svn/pkg-java/trunk/saxonhe
>>
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> Uploaded with a few additional packaging tweaks.
>>
> Thanks!
>
> I have a problem with new Vcs-Svn URL, it doesn't work for me, I get:
> svn: E210005: Unable to connect to a repository at URL
> 'svn+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-java/trunk/saxonhe'
> svn: E210005: No repository found in
> 'svn+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-java/trunk/saxonhe'
>
> It does work however if I squeeze svn/ into the URL like this:
> anonscm.debian.org/svn/pkg-java/trunk/saxonhe
>
> Is there something wrong with my user/configuration or is it a server
> side problem?
Hi Eugene,
I can't speak to the reasoning, but was trying to favor consistency and
support the formats [1,2] as I understand them. That said, I've have
encountered the behavior you describe, and was initially wondering why
the change. I recommend using a shell alias or bash function to
checkout the source. I use this:
debcheckout --auth --source=never ${srcpkg}
and it does the right thing. For example:
$ cd saxonhe && svn info | grep ^URL
URL: svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-java/trunk/saxonhe
Cheers,
tony
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/05/msg00009.html
[2] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/vcs-field-not-canonical.html
Reply to: