Good morning Markus, Am 14.09.19 um 22:41 schrieb Markus Koschany: > Hi, > > Am 14.09.19 um 21:44 schrieb Mechtilde Stehmann: >> Hello, >> >> Succesfully I build an update version 1.25. >> >> The repo is under >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/mechtilde/snakeyaml >> >> you can also find it under >> >> https://people.debian.org/~mechtilde/SnakeYaml >> >> I hope to get some feedback >> >> Kind regards > > > I think the package looks good. You don't need to append the +ds in this > case and I suggest to just package it as 1.25. To not mark a version as a repacked version was the reason, that it takes much time for me to understand how to do repacking. I couldn't find examples where I could study it. Why should it make a differnt to mark if it is a dfsg intended repacking or regarding other points of the policy (not shipping own libraries? > I didn't spot any obvious > regressions while reviewing the debdiff but new versions of snakeyaml > caused build failures in the past, so I would check if everything is > alright. Again I looked deeper into the build log and I find unmet dependencies. So I will build it again without this entries in the control file. > You can find reverse-dependencies with > > reverse-depends -b libyaml-snake-java > > The tool reverse-depends is in ubuntu-dev-tools. There are other options > like using dak but this one doesn't require any fancy privileges. This is the first time to look at reverse-dependencies. So what is the task I have to do? Should I build all packages of the list to test whether they build without problems? > Markus Kind regards -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Debian Developer ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature