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

Bug#960831: RFS: yiyantang/0.7.0-7.1 [NMU] -- Terminal-based Chinese automatic encoding converter



Control: tags -1 moreinfo

Hi xiao sheng wen(肖盛文),

On Sun, 17 May 2020 16:29:31 +0800 =?UTF-8?B?6ZOc6LGM6LGGIExpbnV4?= <
atzlinux@yeah.net> wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
> 
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "yiyantang"
> 
> * Package name : yiyantang
> Version : 0.7.0-7.1
> Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream]
> * URL : [fill in URL of upstream's web site]
> * License : [fill in]
> * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/yiyantang
> Section : text
> 
> It builds those binary packages:
> 
> yiyantang - Terminal-based Chinese automatic encoding converter
> 
> To access further information about this package, please visit the
> following URL:
> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/yiyantang
> 
> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
> 
> dget -x
> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yiyantang/yiyantang_0.7.0-7.1.dsc
> 
> Changes since the last upload:
> 
> * Non-maintainer upload.

Is this really a NMU? The mentors page about the package tells me that you are
the maintainer?

> * Fix FTCBFS: Let dpkg's buildtools.mk supply CC and friends to configure.
> (Closes: #960817)

If it is an NMU, a severity-normal.bug would inappropiate to be fixed in an NMU.

> * Also fix bad argument to --build.

As well as that. (In a NMU: if there is no bug, its out of scope.) Though you
always can file bugs.

So, it mentors right about you being the uploader?

If so, an NMU is wrong; if so, there are also other things to fix, as the
mentors page tells me (e.g dep5, watch file)*. If it is, well, its inappropiate,
especially as tacker.d.o tells me about frequent maintainer uploads.
Either way, this RFS needs updating before it can proceed.

Please clarify and then remove the moreinfo tag. (and if needed retitle the bug)

Thanks
-- 
tobi

* this is the only things I've looked at. No other review at all.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: