Hello, mentors! Even though I don't really want to, I'm looking for a mentor to upload the new version of lsh that I've prepared. I've been in contact with its current maintainers (three weeks ago), and they didn't mind me co-maintaining it. Three days later I mailed them my changes, but I still haven't heard a word despite two additional pings, the second one sent this Monday. Technical question: Will things get messed up by renaming the source package now? The old lsh (the "light" or "baby" shell lsh) is still in oldstable - do we have to wait until sarge is archived? Here is the changelog entry: * New upstream release (Closes: #422199) - Drop 01_fix_manpages.dpatch; incorporated upstream. * New co-maintainer added. * Rename source package "lsh", as the previously clashing package is gone (Closes: #340354). * Drop the tarball-in-tarball format and ship a "normal" .orig.tar.gz. - Drop 02_fix_perms.dpatch. - Add some extra cleanup in debian/rules. * Increase Standards-Version to 3.7.2. No changes needed. * Fix spelling error lshc and its manpage (Closes: #417426). * Put some more docs in the packages: README and ChangeLog is now in all packages, AUTHORS in lsh-utils. Update debian/copyright to refer to /usr/share/doc/lsh-utils/AUTHORS (Closes: #421108). * debian/control: Use ${binary:Version} substitution variable instead of ${source-version}. * Review Build-depends: Drop patchutils, dpatch (temporarily), comerr-dev (redundant), po-debconf (redundant), xutils (makes no difference); add autotools-dev, scsh-0.6 (as alternative to guile-1.6). -- Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) "Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
Attachment:
pgpxbnJqwYXuW.pgp
Description: PGP signature