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

Re: RFS: replaceit (#490695)



On Sunday 24 August 2008 16:23:55 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:

Hello,

> > Probably I wasn't clear enough with my previous message, but I now see
> > that I wrote "1.0.0-2 or 1.0.0-1 in your debian/changelog". So, in a
> > package version like A.B.C-X.Y, in the second part (the debian revision) 
> > `.Y' is reserved for NMU's, so you want a non-NMU version like A.B.C-X or
> > replaceit_1.0.0-2.
>
> It's now correct (I think) and available at
>http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-2.dsc. 

Okay, uploaded, thanks for your patience. This will go through Debian NEW 
queue [1] which will take some time. 

I dared to change your last debian/changelog entry (I hope it is ok with you) 
from:
* Incremented version correctly (no longer NMU)
to:
* Incremented version correctly (no longer non-maintainer version)

since lintian was trying to be too smart, but was wrong to complain for:

W: replaceit source: changelog-should-not-mention-nmu
N:
N:   The first line of the changelog entry for this package appears to
N:   indicate it is a non-maintainer upload (by including either that
N:   string or the string "NMU" and not saying that it's an
N:   acknowledgement), but the changelog indicates the person making this
N:   release is one of the maintainers.
N:
N:   If this was intended to be an NMU, do not add yourself as a maintainer
N:   or uploader. Otherwise, please rephrase your changelog entry to not
N:   cause confusion.
N:

not a big deal though, but it was your `NMU' string which made lintian to 
consider it as an incorrect NMU. That is not your fault of course since it 
was mentioned in a completely different context. I don't think that lintian 
needs some more logic to be injected, since a simple rephrase for that 
changelog entry is completely in order and easy to do.

> I think I worked out what happened: I don't have the correct email in 
> DEBEMAIL so dch used my local address, and I didn't spot it.

Exactly.

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: