On 01/11/2016 11:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:47:05AM +0100, Paolo Greppi wrote: >> On 30/10/2016 11:40, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >>> ok, but I find weird that you bumped std-ver 3.9.5 → 3.9.6 then… >>> You could have gone all the way to 3.9.8, since no changes are needed >>> for this package anyway. >>> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist >> >> The reason is that 3.9.6 is the current one on jessie. But will 0.1.3-2 >> ever get to jessie ? > > It wont, development targets unstable. And even if you're doing a > backport to jessie-backports that's not a reason to declare compliance > to an old version of policy.
OK >> The old watch faile is currently failing on >> https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/node-findup-sync.html >> whereas the redirect works on: >> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/node-findup-sync >> >> Probably we're all on the bleeding edge (tracker.d.o) but people who >> click on the Developer Information (PTS) link on packages.d.o still land >> on packages.qa.d.o > > pacakges.qa.debian.org doesn't updated d/watch info anymore; it used a > backend that's now removed (it use a thing we called "mole"), wheras > tracker.d.o gets the uscan data from UDD. > > Have you found a package on package.qa.debian.org that doesn't show an > error for uscan? Doh silly me I had not noticed; indeed on qa.packages.d.o the watch file "problem" is reported on all packages with a debian/watch file. > And how would that change make it work "on" packages.qa.debian.org > anyway? I have removed the incorrect comment on that in the changelog. The Developer Information (PTS) link on packages.d.o should point to tracker then since packages.qa.d.o is misleading. One thing I like in the old packages.qa.do is that you can subscribe a package by simply providing an email address, whereas in the new one if you click "Subscribe" it brings you to a login page.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature