On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:59:44AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Next time, please depend on ${DPATCH_STAMPFN} instead of patch-stamp
> in debian/rules.
Done.
> For the manual page change, once the manual page is accepted upstream,
> I would suggest a sed command in debian/rules install or binary rather
> than a patch. The file in question will be uncompressed on most
> systems and compressed on Debian, so upstream's manual page should
> just refer to uncompressed intro.txt and Debian should modify it at
> install time. See the nsis package for an (ugly) example of how to do
> this. This way you won't have to refresh the patch every time upstream
> modifies the manual page around the change.
That makes sense; I'll set it up once the manual goes into upstream.
> In future, it is a good idea to document the status of patches
> upstream in the patch header/description.
Done for all existing and new patches.
> PS: I prefer not to be CCed on RFS mails. If have time I'll upload, if
> not someone else will.
Ok, sorry for the noise. I wasn't sure how closely you were watching
-mentors.
I've uploaded 0.21-4 to m.d.n which closes bugs 510189, 510231, 510259,
510152 and 510203. If you've time to take a look and upload that would
be great, I've also sent all the bugs and patches upstream.
I wondered, with this many bugs opened so soon, if whohas wouldn't be
better suited in experimental, but then again most of them have been
because of incorrect urls in the various package searchers, so perhaps
not. Do you have any thoughts?
TIA.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52
Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature