Hi Anton, > it seems, that the current version of the program is 2.8p1, > you have packaged 2.7. Don`t you want to use newer version?
Yes, unfortunately I realized that after I wrote the RFS. Should have done it vice versa. First look at the website and then write the RFS. I started the packaging shortly after I wrote the ITP-Bug[1] last year and missed the new version. I have already imported the new version and build a package with the current version 2.8p1. So yes, I think the best would be to use the newer version as a first package. I let you know when it's done. > If not, is it possible to get 2.7 tarball somewhere on their > website? Older versions of the program are not available after the release of a new version. The authors mentioned that on their mailing list[2]. Unfortunately the list is only available for registered users. Will that be a problem in the future? Another Problem: the upstream source tarballs are divided. There is a tarball with the source code and tarballs for the documentation and test files. I extract all tarballs in a directory and repacked it to get a single orig.tar file. I will add a README.source file and document this procedure. Is that ok or should I consider to use different git repositories. One for the program source, one for the documentation and one for the test files? > You have done a great packaging work. I am ready to upload it. > Just an advice for future uploads, please consider adding > autotest into the d/rules as well as autopkgtest (DEP-8) > for continuous integration. If you need an examples of that, > look some of my packages [1]. Most of them are having already > such autopkgtest. Ok, I will look at that. Kind regards Wolfgang [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767617 [2] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/calculix/info -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1526353.qZnF80Bsx7@perditostation
