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

Re: RFS: fullquottel, mailtextbody, mimetic

On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 07:49:13PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:

> > * fullquottel
> > fullquottel is in testing and unstable, the new version fixes a
> > wishlist bug (#356375), the only change in the package is the
> > description.
> Uploaded.

Thanks a lot!
By coincidence Tony Mancill did an upload too, yesterday, and he was
some minutes earlier than you; but better two than no uploads ;-)
> > * mimetic
> > mimetic was already in the new queue but it was rejected due to
> > inappropriate names of the binary packages. The new version fixes
> > these names and is identical otherwise (ITP: #313088).
> Uploaded. Although a newer version (0.9.1) seems to available already.
> Yours is still 0.8.9.

Thanks, I guess I should run uscan more often in my packages
I'll take a look at the new version ASAP.
> Btw, is there a reason why you repacked the upstream tarball? The contents
> are identical to the archive from the upstream's web page - just that you
> changed the directory name from mimetic-0.8.9 to mimetic-0.8.9.orig.

I guess that's more an error from my early packaging attempts *blush*

BTW: Your upload was unfortunately rejected:

Rejected: mimetic_0.8.9-7.dsc refers to mimetic_0.8.9.orig.tar.gz,
but I can't find it in the queue or in the pool.

I guess you just forgot the -sa ...

## Some times later ##

I've now upgraded to 0.9.1, so we got the new upstream release, a new
orig.tar.gz and a new -1 revision.
The package is again at

Please consider checking and uploading this new version.

> > * mailtextbody
> > mailtextbody is in the new queue and waiting for mimetic which it
> > depends on. The new revision changes the dependencies on mimetic to
> > mimetic's new binary packages names and is identical otherwise
> > (ITP: #347828).
> Let's wait until mimetic gets accepted before you have this package
> uploaded. I assume it will not build correctly until "mimetic" is accepted.
> Otherwise the package looks good.

Sounds good, thanks.
> Btw, I just wonder why you include the "README". It doesn't seem to add
> much value. Consider removing it in the next revision.

That's true, I removed it in -5 right now.

Thanks again for your help.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: