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

Bug#682155: unblock: datapm/0.10-1.1



Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package datapm/0.10-1.1.
The NMU fixes one RC and one important bug:
 #681901 datapm: missing dependency on python-pkg-resources
 #682053 FTBFS if built twice in a row

Full debdiff is attached below.

unblock datapm/0.10-1.1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
diff -Nru datapm-0.10/debian/changelog datapm-0.10/debian/changelog
--- datapm-0.10/debian/changelog	2012-05-31 08:17:34.000000000 +0200
+++ datapm-0.10/debian/changelog	2012-07-19 22:10:28.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+datapm (0.10-1.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload with maintainer approval.
+  * Add Depends on python-pkg-resources.
+    Closes: #681901
+  * Add *.egg-info/* to debian/clean to fix FTBFS if built twice in a row.
+    Closes: #682053
+
+ -- Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>  Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:07:11 +0200
+
 datapm (0.10-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Initial release (Closes: #664566)
diff -Nru datapm-0.10/debian/clean datapm-0.10/debian/clean
--- datapm-0.10/debian/clean	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ datapm-0.10/debian/clean	2012-07-19 22:08:01.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+*.egg-info/*
diff -Nru datapm-0.10/debian/control datapm-0.10/debian/control
--- datapm-0.10/debian/control	2012-05-31 08:17:34.000000000 +0200
+++ datapm-0.10/debian/control	2012-07-19 22:07:09.000000000 +0200
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 Architecture: any
 Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, ${python:Depends}, 
  python-ckanclient (>= 0.3), 
+ python-pkg-resources,
  python-sqlalchemy, 
  python-simplejson, 
  python-sqlite

Reply to: