Your message dated Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:27:41 +1030
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#344280: wxwidgets2.6 is not a native Debian package
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Dec 2005 14:28:30 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 21 06:28:30 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5] helo=mailout.stusta.mhn.de)
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Ep4xC-0000x1-5j
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:28:30 -0800
Received: (qmail 7756 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2005 14:27:59 -0000
Received: from r063144.stusta.swh.mhn.de (10.150.63.144)
by mailhub.stusta.mhn.de with SMTP; 21 Dec 2005 14:27:59 -0000
Received: by r063144.stusta.swh.mhn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 374CD34A4E; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:27:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: wxwidgets2.6 is not a native Debian package
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.18
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:27:59 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: wxwidgets2.6
Version: 2.6.1.2
Severity: normal
wxwidgets2.6 was not "written specifically to be turned into a
Debian package".
It should therefore be packaged as a non-native package
(.orig.tar.gz + .diff.gz + .dsc), and the versionnumber should
include a Debian revision.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 344280-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Dec 2005 17:58:32 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 21 09:58:32 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ppp213-196.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.122.213.196]
helo=hank.shelbyville.oz)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Ep8ES-0002C9-4F
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:58:32 -0800
Received: from ron by hank.shelbyville.oz with local (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1Ep8Dd-0005Mh-Cm; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:27:41 +1030
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:27:41 +1030
To: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#344280: wxwidgets2.6 is not a native Debian package
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
From: Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: wxwidgets2.6
> Version: 2.6.1.2
> Severity: normal
>
> wxwidgets2.6 was not "written specifically to be turned into a
> Debian package".
>
> It should therefore be packaged as a non-native package
> (.orig.tar.gz + .diff.gz + .dsc), and the versionnumber should
> include a Debian revision.
There is no diff.gz. I'm open to technical suggestions for
how 'non-native' but wholly unmodified upstream source releases
might be packaged better, but I WILL NOT include a zero length
diff.gz for upload just to satisfy semantic nit-picking on what
is and is not 'native'.
We've bashed this one to death several times before, I think I
know all the arguments for each side -- possibly the new separate
debian dir thing may be of some use here, but I've yet to see a
working example to demonstrate its relevance, and haven't had
time to toy with it more myself yet.
Efforts to fix the underlying problem will be appreciated, but
until the existence of a diff.gz and use of a 'debian revision'
are less tightly linked together, the typically suggested 'cure'
is not warranted by any natural problem in evidence.
If the package is uploaded with a real diff.gz then it should
have a debian version -- since it typically is not, the tools
dictate it should not have one. That is the real bug, if any,
here. I'm not sure who is interested in addressing it (this
isn't new), but there is nothing 'broken' to 'fix' at this end
that cannot be fixed more thoroughly and permanently in other
places.
Sorry, I want the big picture fixed for this one,
Ron
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
