Subject: Re: guile-oops - msg#00166

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: NCO maintainer MIA

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:22:29AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Hi, > > * Charlie Zender (zender@xxxxxxx) [040624 03:25]: > > I am now formally asking that Debian transition NCO maintainership > > to me and Rorik Peterson <ffrap1@xxxxxxx> over some reasonable > > timescale. Rorik and I are both Debian users. We implemented what > > we feel is a high-quality, up-to-date, Debian compliant, package > > for NCO and have been distributing from the NCO homepage: > > Yes, you can take over the maintainership. The problem is, however, > that you need to find a debian developer who does the upload for you. > For details, please see > http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html > > > We are very eager to begin regular updates of NCO to Sid. > > That's good. Thanks for that. > Ok, you found one. I'll keep an eye over it ASAP. Martin, would you issue a WNPP O report for that? -- Francesco P. Lovergine

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: NCO maintainer MIA

* Francesco P. Lovergine (frankie@xxxxxxxxxx) [040624 11:55]: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:22:29AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Charlie Zender (zender@xxxxxxx) [040624 03:25]: > > > I am now formally asking that Debian transition NCO maintainership > > > to me and Rorik Peterson <ffrap1@xxxxxxx> over some reasonable > > > timescale. Rorik and I are both Debian users. We implemented what > > > we feel is a high-quality, up-to-date, Debian compliant, package > > > for NCO and have been distributing from the NCO homepage: > > > > Yes, you can take over the maintainership. The problem is, however, > > that you need to find a debian developer who does the upload for you. > > For details, please see > > http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html > > > > > We are very eager to begin regular updates of NCO to Sid. > > > > That's good. Thanks for that. > Ok, you found one. I'll keep an eye over it ASAP. > > Martin, would you issue a WNPP O report for that? No need for an O-report. If you want, you can directly create an ITA. But even this is not required IMHO. The upload can just refer to this discussion, e.g. * new maintainers, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2004/06/... Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: guile-oops

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > Egads! > > So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it properly, > and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a > non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops. > > The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I do > in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away? You have to restart debian version by -1. That typically requires epoch if upstream version cannot be updated. -- Francesco P. Lovergine

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: guile-oops

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > > Egads! > > > > > > So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it > > > properly, > > > and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a > > > non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops. > > > > > > The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I > > > do > > > in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away? > > > > You have to restart debian version by -1. > > Why? I really don't see why this should be necessary. > > I checked out the package, and it actually has a tarball inside with the > contents of the 1.0 version of that very debian package... > > Since newest upstream is 1.0.2, simply start with that upstream > .orig.tar.gz, and apply any patches you can discover in the package > (though due to the very weird layout of the package, that might be > hard). Well I can't remember exactly what I did yesterday, but the problem I struct that caused me to go "gah!" was that I got the good old "cannot represent binary changes in diff" problem, which is when I discovered this big fat tarball... > Note that upstream includes a 'debian' directory: the upstream author > apparantly did develpment in Debian sid, since the sid version has > changes to the upstream changelog (additions), and already bumps the > reported version number as 1.0.3 (!), but hasn't yet been released on > GNU's website. > > Since there was no upstream release since March 2001, maybe this package > should be removed from the archive altogether. > I'm all for that :-)