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

RFS: lsh (formerly lsh-utils) (new version: 2.0.3-1) -- SSH2 server and client

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
  * 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

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

Reply to: