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

Re: RFS: xcftools (updated package, former O)



> Dear mentors and QA activists,

Hi,

> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.7-1 of the package
> "xcftools". It was orphaned by the former maintainer (who is upstream as
> well) and I intend to adopt it with this upload.
>
> debian/changelog mentions three new upstream versions which sounds a bug
> change but it isn't. 1.0.5 fixed an RC bug (I've prepared the fix for
> lenny and etch as well). Upstream noticed a minor bug in that release on
> the same day and released 1.0.6 for that. With that release he changed
> the license from GPL to Public Domain but left some files in an unclear
> state. I was able to resolve that with him and he released 1.0.7.
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> xcftools   - command-line tools for extracting data for XCF files
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
>
> The upload would fix these bugs: 525920, 533361 (the RC bug and the
> ITA).

I also saw xcftools (1.0.4-1+lenny1) stable; urgency=high upload. Thanks!

> The urgency is set to high due to the RC bug which is security relevant.
> I haven't uploaded the package earlier because I wasn't able to build it
> cleanly (the dpkg-dev bug).
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xcftools
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
>   main contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xcftools/xcftools_1.0.7-1.dsc
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Package uploaded. Thanks for taking care of these issues.

A minor comment, though: it might be a good idea to also include 
/usr/share/quilt/quilt.make in your rules, so that users can call patch and 
unpatch (phony) targets on their demand.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: