Your message dated Sun, 11 May 2014 03:36:14 -0700 with message-id <CACZd_tBhWWxK-BOqBYE+ZzZnya+GPwwmia3NEettoM8dMz1rog@mail.gmail.com> and subject line Re: Bug#747338: RFS: libonig/5.9.5-1 ITA has caused the Debian Bug report #747338, regarding RFS: libonig/5.9.5-1 ITA to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 747338: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747338 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: RFS: libonig/5.9.5-1 ITA
- From: Jörg Frings-Fürst <debian@jff-webhosting.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 17:42:07 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1399477327.7145.6.camel@merkur>
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libonig" * Package name : libonig Version : 5.9.5-1 Upstream Author : K.Kosako <sndgk393 AT ybb DOT ne DOT jp> * URL : http://www.geocities.jp/kosako3/oniguruma/ * License : BSD-2-clause Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libonig-dev - Development files for libonig2 libonig2 - Oniguruma regular expressions library libonig2-dbg - Debugging symbols for libonig2 To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libonig Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libo/libonig/libonig_5.9.5-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * add debian/libonig-dev.doc-base * add debian/symbols * rewrite debian/copyright * rewrite debian/rules (Closes: #645940) * patch buildsystem (Closes: #734683) * change lib version to 2.1.0 * Bump compat to 9 * Update to upstream version 5.9.5 (Closes: #661616) * Bump Standarts to 3.9.5 * New Maintainer (Closes: #747187) Regards, Jörg Frings-Fürst -- pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8 EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E pgp Key: BE581B6E CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56 Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54526 Niederkail IRC: j_f-f@freenode.net j_f-f@oftc.netAttachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Jörg Frings-Fürst <debian@jff-webhosting.net>
- Cc: 747338-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#747338: RFS: libonig/5.9.5-1 ITA
- From: Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 03:36:14 -0700
- Message-id: <CACZd_tBhWWxK-BOqBYE+ZzZnya+GPwwmia3NEettoM8dMz1rog@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1399802395.7631.46.camel@merkur>
- References: <[🔎] 1399477327.7145.6.camel@merkur> <[🔎] CACZd_tCPgovd8iYGM=3OWuu1zxKqG_dbfFj_+R8Z76QdCq8fDg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 1399795454.7631.23.camel@merkur> <[🔎] CACZd_tATFTouZNvzZY-2GG1OvPc2HNpR2kOfLbZiG0JakH6bnQ@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 1399802395.7631.46.camel@merkur>
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 11.05.2014, 01:16 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng: >> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst >> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: >> > Hello Vincent, >> > >> > >> > Am Samstag, den 10.05.2014, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng: >> >> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst >> >> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: >> >> > Package: sponsorship-requests >> >> > Severity: normal >> >> > >> > [...] >> >> > >> >> > dget -x >> >> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libo/libonig/libonig_5.9.5-1.dsc >> >> > >> >> > >> >> - debian/control: libonig2 needs to declare Pre-Depends: >> >> ${misc:Pre-Depends}. Also, the Replaces: field is unnecessary for >> >> libonig2. >> > done >> >> No, not done. Please re-read my comment above more carefully (emphasis >> on "Pre-Depends:"), or refer to the Debian wiki's guide on >> multiarch-ifying packages. [1] > I kick myself. :-( No worries, I found the process of multiarch-ifying a package rather confusing and error-prone back when I first started as well. :) >> Another thing: >> >> W: libonig source: package-depends-on-lower-priority-package >> libonig-dev:optional depends on libonig2:extra >> >> Either libonig2 needs to be Priority: optional, or libonig-dev made >> Priority: extra. >> > Insert "Priority: optional" to libonig2. > > I run lintian with "lintian -i -I -E --pedantic --profile debian > *.changes" on both dirs (source & binary). But I don't get this warning. Perhaps you have an outdated version of lintian? That's the only explanation I can think of. > With which params do you run lintian? Same as above, minus "-i" because it's too spammy (I prefer "lintian-info -t unknown-tag-here" if there's a particular tag that I don't know how to handle) and "--profile debian". > Is there any workflowchart, checklist or so? If possible with links to > the rules? > Every time I get from you btw. I found new rules. That would make it > really easier. Not really...there isn't an exact set of rules I use and/or look for when I'm sponsoring packages. There are always a few must-do's, i.e. the basic stuff, e.g. making sure that the package builds cleanly in a chroot, lintian output, that d/copyright is accurate and not missing anything, that the tarball on mentors.d.n matches the one provided upstream, and taking a look at the debdiff between the last upload and the RFS (if it's a package that's already been uploaded to Debian), and various other checks, but no, I don't have a recipe or a way to automate most of this. If you're interested in a checklist of sorts, there's a few good pages on the Debian wiki that you may find interesting [1][2]. > Uploaded to mentors Built, signed, and uploaded; thanks for your contribution to Debian! Regards, Vincent [1] https://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist [2] https://wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian#Check_points_for_any_package (note that I personally consider [2] to be far more relevant for upstream than for individual package maintainers)
--- End Message ---