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

Bug#800561: marked as done (RFS: classified-ads/0.08-1 - internet messaging system)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:24:06 +0200
with message-id <1444026246.2947.6.camel@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#800561: RFS: classified-ads/0.08-1 - internet messaging system
has caused the Debian Bug report #800561,
regarding RFS: classified-ads/0.08-1 - internet messaging system
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.)


-- 
800561: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800561
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "classified-ads":

 * Package name    : classified-ads
   Version         : 0.08-1
   Upstream Author : Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@katiska.org>
 * URL             : http://katiska.org/classified-ads/
 * License         : LGPL-2.1
   Section         : net

It builds those binary packages:

  classified-ads - Program for displaying classified advertisement items

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/classified-ads

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

dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/classified-ads/classified-ads_0.08-1.dsc

More information about classified-ads can be obtained from 
http://katiska.org/classified-ads/.

Changes since the last upload:
  * Qt version change (4->5)
  * Translation system change from dm files of qt to gnu gettext
  * Bitmap conversion produces same binary always. Closes: #794395
  * Networking related bugfixes

Regards,
Antti Järvinen

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Am Sonntag, den 04.10.2015, 23:50 +0300 schrieb Antti Jarvinen:
> Tobias Frost writes:
>  > small issues only, please fix those (or convince me that it is ok)
> and
>  > ping me again.  I'll pull from git.
>  > 
>  > -> d/changelog 
>  >  * It is convention when you package a new upstream to have that
> in the
>  >    changelog. As you close upstream bugs, you would write:
>  >       "New upstream release. Closes: #794395"
>  >  * Because: d/changelog is for Debian changes, not to document 
>  >    upstream changes. Let those lines go. 
> 
> All right. 
> 
>  >  * But there are changes do the pacakaging which are not
> documented:
>  >      o removal of B-Ds, adding of README.Source 
> 
> So these are added. 
> 
>  > For practice sharing: When my package is under a repository I try
> to
>  > have one commit per change topic. This helps to understand which
>  > d/changelog entry correleates to which change.
> 
> So addition of 1 line into changelog is one commit git. Makes sense. 
> 
>  > -> d/README.source
>  >   * the procedure you describe is quite standard, so maybe remove
> it?
>  >   otherwise:
>  >   * it has some trailing whitespaces.
>  >   * you *SHOULD* *REALLY* sign tags, at least the final build
>  >     (add this to your gbp.conf) 
>  >   * you should even consider signing every commit. 
>  >     http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/git-horror-story
> 
> Well,the README.source is now gone, importing the new release so that
> git-buildpackage was happy required some practice. Signing commits is
> indeed good idea. Which gets me into next topic: 
> 
>  > -> your gbp.conf should be only related to the package, not your
>  > (local) build enviorment. You local settings should go into your
> local
>  > file. See gbp.conf(5).
> 
> Ok, gbp.conf(5) does not contain word "local". But I understand that
> things like tarball-directory or directory for ready builds may be
> different from user to user so those lines are now removed, as is 
> commands for building and cleaning. In "[git-buildpackage]" I added
> entry for signing git tags - is this again something that should be
> considered a local setting?
> 
>  > (As you are upstream: Please also bump the copyright years when
> you add
>  > or edit files to their header. Its odd to have new file (c)
> 2013...
>  > NOTE: This is *NOT* something you need to fix for this upload,
> just a
>  > suggestion to adapt this best practice in the future)
> 
> Hmm..a template. Yes. 
> 
> Changes for packaging have now been pushed to github. Package in
> mentors has not been updated. 
> 
> --
> Antti
> 

Built & Uploading...

One remark: Feel free to use urgency=medium, its standard now. See
#730343.

Thanks for your contribution
(and feel free to ping me directly on any sponsorship needs)

--
tobi

--- End Message ---
Reply to: