Bug#693230: Fwd: Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Forward to ITP bug...
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016, 06:08:55 PM
From: Robert James Clay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, Tobias Frost <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:
> Some small review. ....
> - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically
> generated. ....
That came out since my multimail package on mentors was put online at the mentors site. The package doesn't have any reverse depends; so no, it doesn't really need an explicit "-dbg" package anymore.
> - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean? I plan to further discuss other aspects of it with him, yes... I have provided him with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...
> - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in since oldstable)
I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep it explicitly noted...
> - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related lintian errors.
> - also, with the drop of the dbg package some overrides can be removed
"overrides"? You mean, in d/rules?
> - please remove the comments from d/watch
I sometimes have relevant info in d/watch file comments, but yes in this case there's really no need for them...