Bug#795771: RFS: dblatex/0.3.7-1
Hi Andreas,
>I'm used to be very careful (you could also say: paranoid) regarding
>publishing: never publish anything changed under the same release number
>as before, even if it's only a release candidate on mentors.
>
>But as this seems to be overdone, I will merge the two changelog
>sections and return to 0.3.7-1 on my next upload.
yes, I agree about security, but mentors is an exception, since it already has
a backlog (you can see early releases on the package page, even if the sources
are not there anymore).
>I'd suggest asking him to add a version number to the *next* examples
>update (which I don't expect to happen soon). That should be enough,
>shouldn't it?
sure :)
>Interesting service (didn't know about it), but I don't understand: what
>is the advantage over querying SourceForge directly? The latter is the
>URL always given in the upstream release mails, thus I regard it as the
>canonical source.
feel free to keep SF then, I don't know which is better, both of them are
special urls that are translated into Debian redirectors by uscan, because
they don't work without some magic bit changes.
for python code usually pypi is better, but I guess you can keep sf and live
happy :)
it was just FYI
>As setup.py is contributed by upstream, I don't want to add a patch just
>to replace the rules dependency. However I will ask upstream to add the
>install_requires section in the next upstream release, then I can drop
>the rules dependency.
fine.
>Any more loose ends? Otherwise I would merely do a merged upload under
>the original version numer, as explained above.
just there is no need to mention the RFS bug, and for sure
you need to start with an "*" if you want to :)
I hope this will be your last upload, but I can't promise for sure :)
e.g. you might forget to update
"debian/patches/10_dblatex_version.patch"
or some minor corrections in changelog, e.g.
* New upstream release fixes the following open Debian BTS issues:
can be dropped, because the line above already covers it
and something similar (missing "+" and so on).
I would appreciate a changelog like this:
dblatex (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
+ Use section attribute label to force the section counter. Don't
number a chapter with an empty label attribute. Thanks to Petter
Reinholdtsen for reporting. Closes: #684772
+ Improve the PDF metadata setup. Thanks to Petter Reinholdtsen for
reporting. Closes: #792898
+ Allow one to put a figure anchor at the top even if the caption is at the
bottom, thanks to the parameter figure.anchor.top. Thanks to Petter
Reinholdtsen for reporting. Closes: #793077
* Drop patches that have been integrated upstream:
+ 20_inkscape_error_handler.patch
* Refresh various patches regarding line numbers and context.
* Add a temporary lintian override regarding a copyright file spelling error
until it will be fixed upstream.
* debian/compat:
+ Bump compatibility level to 9.
* debian/control:
+ Bump debhelper dependency version to >= 9.
+ Wrap and sort dependencies.
+ Remove dependency version constraints already fulfilled in oldstable.
* debian/rules:
+ Explicitly specify build system in default dh call.
+ Use target override_dh_installexamples for examples instead of target
override_dh_installdocs.
+ Simplify file by replacing target override_dh_installdocs with separate
file debian/docs.
+ Instead of moving xhtml/ documentation directory to well known html/
location, create a compatibility symlink (new file debian/dblatex.links).
+ Simplify file by removing target get-orig-source and related variable
definitions: redundant to uscan command.
+ Unify recipe line indentation: use TAB as prefix for every recipe line.
+ Clean up override_dh_clean content.
* debian/watch:
+ Also watch examples tarball.
-- Andreas Hoenen <andreas@hoenen-terstappen.de> Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:25:57 +0200
(e.g. with an updated timestamp)
each "+" is has an indentation of course, my MTA strips it :)
cheers,
G.
Reply to: