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

Re: flashcache - call for resolution / seeking for a mentor

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:13:33PM +1000, onlyjob wrote:
> > You didn't fix Vcs-* per Arno comments in the ITP bug.
> I can't quite do it yet because I have no public repository.
Then remove the tags. They are optional.
> Given that our only option is merge, it looks like there will be no
> second repository.

> > What is "This has to be exported to make some magic below work." (before
> > 'export DH_OPTIONS')?
> Hmm, apparently a remnants after dh_make
No, looks like a blind copy-paste.

> > If "At the moment this version works only on x86_64 a.k.a. amd64" why
> > Architecture: linux-any?
> That is an interesting question.
> We believe that upstream may eventually fix that.
> I remember reading discussion on this some time ago, regarding
> different package with similar problem.
> It was suggested that limiting package for the only architecture as
> workaround for upstream bugs is not recommended
> because package may be ported to a different architecture etc. I had
> impression that if package meant to be useful on linux-any
> it should be a target architecture despite know problems with some
> particular architectures.
> Please correct me on this - what's the best practice?
Why it doesn't work on other architectures? Does it build there? Is the
not working of a "doesn't launch" kind or "works but sometimes crashes"
kind? Can it corrupt user data because of this?

> > The patch lacks author information (did you see
> > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ ? it suggests adding other useful
> > information to patch headers).
> No I did not - thank you very much for the hint.
I've asked this because you have Description tag in the patch header.
Usually manually created patches don't have any metadata at all.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: