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

Bug#657393: RFS: skstream/0.3.6-1 [ITA] -- IOStream C++ socket Library

* Stephen M. Webb <stephen.webb@bregmasoft.ca>, 2012-01-25, 17:39:
 dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/skstream/skstream_0.3.8-1.dsc
 Changes since the last upload:

skstream (0.3.8-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
  * new maintainer (closes: #653977)

This is a bit misleading. It would normally interpret such item as "I set myself as Maintainer". But this is not what happened here: you set Debian Games Team as maintainer, and added yourself to Uploaders. I think this should be written explicitly in the changelog.

Now, I don't know what this package has to do with games, but if DGT fold don't mind, meh. (I'm not one of them, which is also a good excuse not to sponsor this package. :P)

  * renamed binary packages due to SONAME change

But here are reverse-dependencies of the old binary package. Which means that uploading this to unstable starts a transition. What this discussed with the release team? It probably should, even though the number of involved packages is small.

That said, the best moment to talk to the release team would be after the package has been thoroughly reviewed (thus: not yet).

  * moved to debhelper 8

What does this mean?

I see that you rewrote debian/rules from scratch, apparently introducing regressions... Is that a part of "moved to debhelper 8"?

Does you new d/rules support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt like the old one did? Are you sure that there are no other regressions?

  * added debian/symbols file

This looks a bit suspicious. Symbols that exist only on amd64? I seriously doubt it...

  * debian/copyright: convert to DEP-5 format

I see no such changes to debian/copyright in my debdiff.

You converted the package to source format 3.0 (quilt), but this is not documented in the changelog.

Why is the patch name 0001-gcc-4.4.patch if the description is "fixes compilation errors with GCC **3.3**" (emphasis mine).

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: