Bug#809727: RFS: hwb/1:040412-7
On Thursday, January 07, 2016 10:13:50 AM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 08:40:43AM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "hwb"
> as a full source+binary upload, since I don't see the magic
> line to get non-free packages auto-built, nor I ever heard of people
> doing non-free upload as a true source-only and I didn't feel like
> testing the infra
I've figured that was more appropriate for non arch:all packages. Or is it because it is arch:all, that it would be appropriate? I'll investigate it.
> > More information about hwb can be obtained from
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/pkg-hwb.git
> well, but it's not updated.
> please push & tag now.
Hmm... Thought I'd at least pushed all but the new tag... In any case, that's done now.
> (btw, I'd have preffered https, and with https-everywhere that url just
> go in some bad place. sigh)
I've not seen that brought up before. I have a tendency to default to the git URL, though it is true that there may be places where the firewalls are locked down such as to block the git port...
> > Also; I am now a Debian Maintainer and I would appreciate having DM upload
> > permissions added for my 'hwb' package after this new version is uploaded.
> Well, I don't feel like grantind DM rights after the first upload, also
> since I don't you or your work, sorry
Up to you, of course. So, should I contact you when I next need a sponsor for this one?
> (I think you are the same person of a previous upload who asked for DM?)
For a package (multimail) I'm working on adopting, yes. Also, recently, for my postnews package where it was my first upload of it since I became a DM. Not counting my (currently, 10) pkg-perl packages (which do not use the DM concept but where I am noted as an uploader) I have three other packages where I'm already listed for DM upload rights for the package, plus one other I'll be asking for it when I next update the package.