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

Bug#721839: RFS: musl/0.9.13-2 [ITP]



I have packed the newest upstream version 0.9.14

It builds those binary packages:

  musl  - standard C library
  musl-dev   - standard C library development files
  musl-tools - standard C library tools

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/musl

 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

    dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/musl/musl_0.9.14-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  * Import upstream version 0.9.14
  * Only build on fully supported architectures
  * Point to new homepage in control file (Closes: #724277)
  * Revorked debian/rules
  * Solved possible problem with postrm script (Closes: #724247)

I would appreciate if someone could upload the package.

  Regards,
   Kevin Bortis

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Anton Gladky <gladky.anton@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I uploaded it.  Have done only minor change:
>
> diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
> index 346bdf2..9e328e6 100644
> --- a/debian/changelog
> +++ b/debian/changelog
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  musl (0.9.13-3) unstable; urgency=low
>
> -  * Ready for Debian upload  (Closes: #721839)
> +  * Ready for Debian upload  (Closes: #713072)
>    * Respect user set CC
>    * Reworked package according to feedback gven
>      by Anton Gladky. See #721839 for reference.
>
>
> So you should close only ITP-bug. RFS-bug will be closed
> manually.
>
> Please, for future upload create only one additional
> changelog-paragraph.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Anton
>
>
> 2013/9/21 Kevin Bortis <pkgs@bortis.ch>:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have revorked the debian/copyright file according to the additional
>> comments given by Paul Richards Tagliamonte (FTP Master).
>>
>> Work done:
>>   * Incorporated all copyright info given from upstream in their copyright file
>>   * grep over complete source tree for the term "Copyright" and
>> controlled it against debian/copyright
>>
>> I hope to statisfy all copyright holders and of course the Debian policy.
>>
>> The updated copyright file can be found for review under:
>> https://github.com/wermut/musl/blob/master/debian/copyright
>> https://github.com/wermut/musl
>>
>> The updated package is not yet uploaded to debian mentors.
>>
>> Sorry for the inconvenience and additional work.
>>
>> @ Boris Pek: Thank you for the tip.
>>
>> Regards
>>   Kevin
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Boris Pek <tehnick@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>>>>>  The package was not yet uploaded into Debian.
>>>>>>  - The package number should be 0.9.13-1
>>>>>
>>>>>  Could I still keep the incrementation, because the earlier versions
>>>>>  are already tagged & signed in the public git repository and also
>>>>>  already uploaded to a Ubuntu PPA? (ppa:bortis/musl) So the first
>>>>>  version for uploading would be 0.9.13-3 if you accept. Or we can wait
>>>>>  for musl 0.9.14 wich, according to upstreams roadmap, will be released
>>>>>  in the next two weeks to get a clean 0.9.14-1.
>>>>
>>>> My feeling is that you'll need to keep the Ubuntu PPA and the Debian
>>>> package seperated and have them NOT in the same git branch. This will
>>>> save you trouble down the road as Debian != Ubuntu in many aspects and
>>>> you will face situations where you need only to upload Debian or
>>>> Ubuntu...
>>>
>>> Just small additional tips: use specific versioning scheme in your PPA.
>>> For example: 0.9.14-0ppa1~raring1. As you can see, this version is lower that
>>> version in official Debian and Ubuntu archives. So once updated package will hit
>>> into main archive, it will be updated in users systems.
>>>
>>> I use this approach for a long period of time. You may find one of examples here:
>>> https://launchpad.net/~tehnick/+archive/q4wine/+packages
>>> Just look at "Newer version available" string.
>>>
>>> Related Git-repo:
>>> https://github.com/tehnick/q4wine-debian
>>> Just look at git tags.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Boris


Reply to: