-=| Giorgio Pioda, Mon, 28 May 2007 09:52:29 +0200 |=- > Hi Damyan and Paul > > I've an updated package of peless: > > http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/peless-1.125/peless_1.125-3.dsc > > Please take a look at! The rules still needs some tweaking for boost > (even more than in the previous 1.108), but now is OK. Still no dice :/ * peless_1.125.orig.tar.gz is not *exactly* the same as on upstream site: $ md5sum peless_1.125.orig.tar.gz 150fdd1ae86c01485440397dc0a754ac peless_1.125.orig.tar.gz $ md5sum /tmp/peless-1.125.tar.bz2 4f347a3adaabc89759300cbac241210a /tmp/peless-1.125.tar.bz2 I downloaded the second one from berlios.de. Did you re-package the orig.tar.gz? This was not the case with 1.108. Is there real need for re-packaging? * The changelog entries for 1.125 are from "Giorgio Pioda <gfwp@linux.local.lan>" - this must match exactly the Maintainer: field in debian/control. Did you check the package with lintian? While there, is there a need for that *three* changelog entries for 1.125-x? Why not simply change the version of the 1.108-1 entry and leave it as is, i.e. simply "initial release". Your package didn't hit Debian yet, so no need to explain the changes. There are exceptions, of course - if you have large number of installations you want to upgrade or prefer to document the changes for yourself. In this case please at least merge the three 1.125 entries into one. I can't believe you've grown large user-base in 30 minutes :) * debian/copyright - can you change the download URL to the distribution-neutral one? Same for debian/watch. * I am uncertain, but aren't the checks for BOOST redundant as you have Build-Depends: libboost-regex-dev? I have no strong opinion about this, just wondering. -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature