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