Re: Adding jwhois package to volatile?
Hi Peter,
On Wednesday, 03 Aug 2005, you wrote:
> Martin Zobel-Helas:
>
> >* You make changes on the build-system i consider as not necessary.
> >* You bump the Standards-Version number.
> >* You change the license text of your package
> >* You change (build)dependencies.
>
> This is because I re-generated the debian directory for the upstream
> package (I am also the upstream developer for this), and I thought it was
> easier to just dump this into the new package for volatile. These changes
> aren't important, I can remove them.
Please do so.
> >* You close _23_! bugs with "Updated default configuration." in
> > debian/changelog.
>
> These are the important changes. All of them are one-line changes (or maybe
> two-line, but those are rare) changes to the jwhois.conf file. These bugs
> were already closed, most of them in a version that I had already targetted
> for Sarge, but which for some reason never transitioned over into testing
> in the couple of months it lived in unstable before the release. Some are
> changes that were added post-Sarge.
>
> I know that "Updated default configuration" isn't a very descriptive
> changelog entry, but the other alternative is to repeat the bug titles, and
> I would prefer not to do that.
It would be okay for me, if you would add something like:
* fixed IP ranges for AFRINIC (Closes: #112345, #432890, #238093 ...)
* updated whois servers for .fi, .hu, .is (Closes: #234567, #987654 ...)
IMHO there should be one entry per RIR, and one entry for TLDs changed.
> >And by the way, why do you depend on dpkg? You do not need to depend on
> >essential packages.
>
> It's a versioned depends. It all comes from a misunderstanding in an old
> package version that I neede to undo. I am planning on removing some of the
> "must fix my stupid mistake on upgrade" in a later version.
dpkg 1.9.0 is even older than the dpkg in oldstable, so IMHO you could
remove this entry.
If you want to upload the package to volatile please keep in mind that
the upgrade path from volatile to the next stable release needs to be at
least as easy as from the current stable release; means e.g. that the
version in volatile must not be higher than in testing. Also please
add volatile into the version number, so we get something like
<packagename>_<version>-0volatile1.
For further instructions also see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2005/08/msg00008.html.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask here or on
#debian-volatile on OFTC.
Greetings
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas
debian-volatile team member
Reply to: