Hi Dave, On 11/01/15 14:04, Dave Maiorino wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > Thanks for the quick reply! Looks like there is still some work that > needs to be done ;) Thank you for the pointers, I need to go back and > clean-up more. I have submitted to Pypi a while back, but have not kept > that package up-to-date. > No problem... Obviously from a user perspective having two different versions both of which look current would be very confusing. Also making sure all sources are upto date eases the job of a maintainer though obviously this doesn't apply as much since you're upstream. > For starters, I will go ahead and submit the RFS. I will need a little > more time to get the corrections in. In this case, is it better to > follow-up with the RFS, or use this email thread instead? With revisions > and corrections, are these usually tracked in the RFS? > It is much better to follow up in the RFS bug, so the sponsoring process is logged in the BTS. A sponsor may also then like to mark the RFS bug as owned (or set other tags) to track the package state. > Thanks again! > No problem! Best of luck getting you package into Debian. Cheers, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature