Hi Axel, Samuel Henrique Oltramari Pinto wrote with subject "Accepted fte > 0.50.2b6-9 (source) into unstable)": > > * debian/watch: Create. > > This is contra-productive. :-( >> > I'm sorry, what should i have write on the changelog instead? I thought the creation of watch file didn't need a detailed changelog because its purpose is always the same and the only difference would be the regex, watch version and url, also the changes would easily be recognizable because the file didn't exist before, should've detailed/explained the watch entirely?
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fte now claims that there is a new > upstream release while there isn't. > > fte upstream has the annoying behaviour to _not_ put the version > number but the release date into the tar ball file names which is why > there never has been a watch file in the past. See > /usr/share/doc/fte/changelog.gz: > Wow, that was a very silly mistake. I think i didn't pay attention to uscan output when testing the watch file, I won't let this happen again. I'm tempted to do another QA upload to fix this false positive. The > other option would be to either remove the watch file or the comment > out its content. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] 2016-03-28 7:50 GMT-03:00 Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>: > Package: fte > Version: 0.50.2b6-9 > > Hi, > > Samuel Henrique Oltramari Pinto wrote with subject "Accepted fte > 0.50.2b6-9 (source) into unstable)": > > * debian/watch: Create. > > This is contra-productive. :-( > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fte now claims that there is a new > upstream release while there isn't. > > fte upstream has the annoying behaviour to _not_ put the version > number but the release date into the tar ball file names which is why > there never has been a watch file in the past. See > /usr/share/doc/fte/changelog.gz: > > 0.50.2b6 -- <fill month here> 2011 > […] > 0.50.2b5 -- March 2010 > > Hence we _cannot_ check for new versions with watch files unless we > change the version number of the package. I recommend to _not_ change > the version number to only use the date based numbers. A proper > upstream version number which would work with an according watch file > would be e.g. > > 0.50.2b6-20110708 > > I'm tempted to do another QA upload to fix this false positive. The > other option would be to either remove the watch file or the comment > out its content. > > Regards, Axel > -- > ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ > : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin > `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 > `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE >
