Bug#1007600: xfaces: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Sorry about that. Ill look into upgrading. On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 22:51 Bastian Germann wrote: > Hi Hakan, > > You have overridden my NMU which fixed this issue and - more importantly - > #1049887. I have uploaded the fix for > #1049887 once again with 3.3-30.1. I am not sending a debdiff so that > debdiff does not show up in the BTS or mailing > list archives. > > Please make sure to have the last NMU integrated in your working directory. > > For this issue I have created a debdiff that is attached. Having > additional files in your working copy included in your > uploads is one of the things that are prevented with the 3.0 (quilt) > format. Please consider applying. > > Thanks, > Bastian
Bug#1007600: xfaces: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Hi Hakan, You have overridden my NMU which fixed this issue and - more importantly - #1049887. I have uploaded the fix for #1049887 once again with 3.3-30.1. I am not sending a debdiff so that debdiff does not show up in the BTS or mailing list archives. Please make sure to have the last NMU integrated in your working directory. For this issue I have created a debdiff that is attached. Having additional files in your working copy included in your uploads is one of the things that are prevented with the 3.0 (quilt) format. Please consider applying. Thanks, Bastian xfaces_3.3-30.2.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#1007600: xfaces: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Source: xfaces Version: 3.3-29 Severity: wishlist Tags: bookworm sid Usertags: format1.0 format1.0-nkp-nv Dear maintainer, This package is among the few (1.9%) that still use source format 1.0 in bookworm. Please upgrade it to source format 3.0, as (1) this format has many advantages, as documented in https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this contributes to standardization of packaging practices. Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software could maybe benefit from a refresh. It might be a good opportunity to look at other aspects as well. It was noticed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00096.html that the conversion for this package is likely trivial, and builds bit-by-bit identical binary packages. This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html Thanks Lucas
