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. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature