Re: RFS swiftmailer new upstream release
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2014-05-08 14:37, Nicolas wrote:
>> so why did you change dh compat-level from 8 to 9 then?
>>
>>
> I don't know exactly. There's no change that affect my package and
> the others packages I work on used compat level 9
that's a rather lame reason.
if there is no change that affects your package, you should probably
go for compat-level 8, to ease backporting.
read: don't use overly tight (that is: more strict than needed)
dependencies
>
> Ok I understand. Do you think I should make a revert and add
> severals commits for that release or should I do it for next ones
> ?
the latter.
>> you might also upload your package to mentors.debian.net to ease
>> reviewing.
>>
>
> Done.
>
thanks.
looking at the mentors-page, it becomes quite obvious that by now
there is a newer upstream version (5.2.0) available.
you might want to package the newest version. (i'm aware that your
initial request for sponsorship predates swift-5.1.0; but then was
then and now is now :-))
also: it's somewhat useless to mention "tell lintian to not complain"
in your lintian-override
also the override description might be a bit more to the point: what
the script is used for, is not so interesting; what i find more
interesting is why do you think it should stay non-executable? (the
fact that upstream distributes it like this and that (afaict) it is
only used on an ad-hoc basis may be enough)
fgasdmr
IOhannes
PS: i don't want to raise too many expectations; as i'm not into php
(packaging), it's unlikely that *i* will sponsor your package; in any
case, i hope that my comments will help bringing the package into a
state that a potential sponsor will find more useful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=P7cV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: