Bug#796191: RFS: libharu/2.3.0+dfsg-1~exp1
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna
<costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it> wrote:
> Control: owner -1 !
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Johan,
>
> multiarch should be mentioned in control file.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation
Ok, I will check - some time since I last did this.
>
>
>
> this should be fine, please check if reverse dependencies still builds and ask
>
> for a transition slot by opening a bug on release.debian.org metapackage
> (shouldn't be needed for ABI only changes, but with the libstdc++6 transition
> ongoing... well, they might not appreciated some more binNMUs :) )
Should I do so before uploading to experimental?
>
> other stuff
>
> d/readme.source should be named README.source and maybe just dropped, since the last
> release is dfsg
Looking at the policy I think it is better to document this in
debian/copyright. I like to document why I remove files from the
original source.
>
>
> d/rules, the get-orig-source can be dropped, right?
yes, uscan will do so
>
> d/p/fix-rebuild.diff
>
> what is the pourpose of this patch?
> if files are autogenerated you might ad
>
>
> d/p/fix-version.diff
>
> well, upstream should pay attention when releasing :)
Strictly speaking both are not necessary when you build the package
the first time, however, when you rebuild a source package after
building a binary package (or when using eg git-buildpackage) it will
complain that these files have changed compared to the version in the
tarball/repository.
Kind Regards,
Johan
Reply to: