Re: New uploads to fix RC bugs

[Lior Kaplan <webmaster@guides.co.il>]

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix them and upload a new version.

> Third and last remark, since this is a documentation package, why
> didn't you upgrade this to the latest version? That'd seem really
> useful to me.

So close to sarge release, I don't want to upload a new upstream
version. I prefer to fix the known bugs and not risk with inserting new
ones.

Since I already have a new version ready, I don't care to upload it to
sid or experimental for checks before sarge. What do you think?

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:54:54PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> 
>> Through Shaul Karl, my sponsor, I did uploads of tea & phpdoc
>> packages to close RC bug reports: #303352 & #28227.
> 
> 
> I just reviewed phpdoc (although I'm not a release-manager or 
> -assistent, and have a few remarks:
> 
> | --- phpdoc-20030911/Makefile.in | +++
> phpdoc-20030911.orig/Makefile.in | @@ -307,7 +307,5 @@ | |
> distclean: clean |         for file in `find . -name "*.in"`; do rm
> `dirname $$file`/`basename $$file .in`; done | -       rm -f
> config.status config.cache | -       find . -name functions.xml
> -print0 | xargs -0 rm -f | |  # }}}
> 
> This inflates the diff by a great deal, you're now shipping tons of 
> autogenerated functions.xml files. Also this change is not listed in
> the changelog.
> 
> | --- phpdoc-20030911/debian/rules | +++ phpdoc-20030911/debian/rules
>  | @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ |  configure-stamp: |         dh_testdir |
> # Add here commands to configure the package. | +       autoconf |
> ./configure --with-lang=en | |         touch configure-stamp
> 
> But you don't build-depend on autoconf, this is not going to work.
> And indeed, pbuilder says:
> 
> | make: autoconf: Command not found | make: *** [configure-stamp]
> Error 127 | pbuilder: Failed autobuilding of package
> 
> Third and last remark, since this is a documentation package, why
> didn't you upgrade this to the latest version? That'd seem really
> useful to me.
> 
> Since the package is orphaned and now ITA'd by you, you should
> probably also set the Maintainer: address properly to yourself,
> thereby formally adopting the package (I assume that this didn't
> happen because the package sat with your sponsor before it was indeed
> orphaned, so this is of course nobody's fault really).
> 
> --Jeroen
> 

-- 

Regards,

Lior Kaplan
kaplanlior@gmail.com
http://www.Guides.co.il

Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID)