Reinhard Tartler <siretart@debian.org> writes: [...] > I've had a brief look at the package, and have a few comments on it: Thank's for taking the time to review the package. > - the orig.tar.gz you've used is content-identical but not > bit-identical. This means that the archive will reject the upload > because the checksums do not match. I'll regenerate the .changes using the proper archive. The problem may be related to the procedure used to produce the upstream tarball, it is created with file ownership different from root.root and git-buildpackage /probably/ is unable to reproduce it exactly. > - you did not follow the NMU protocol [1]. At the minimum, you should > attach the debdiff to the bugs you are addressing here. In order to > faciliate this, please have a look at the nmudiff(1) command, > espc. at the option '--old'. I'll look at it. > - Did you manage to talk about this NMU with Christian Meder? Does he > acknowledge this upload? In case you didn't manage to contact him, I > think you should adopt the package and use maintainer version > numbering. Espc. after reading #470162 I don't know if he acknoledge the upload, but I've CCed him in my first RFS without receiving any response. I've also announced my intention to NMU on the BTS a week before the upload, without reactions. If I'm not wrong, you are suggesting I hijack the package (since it's not orphaned). Is it possible to do sponsored hijack? ciao -- walter franzini http://aegis.stepbuild.org
Attachment:
pgpyfMo23eQ5T.pgp
Description: PGP signature