Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Am 02.05.22 um 08:27 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: Since the odr-dabmod package was not moved to the NEW queue yet, can I just reload the package with the updated debian/rules file or do I also need to modify file debian/changelog indicating the change on debian/rules? In the latter case, do I need to change the package version (ie. moving to 2.6.0-2 from 2.6.0-1)? Reupload without changing the changelog.
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Hi Bastian, I just realized that I need to make a slight change to file debian/rules by calling dh_auto_configure with an additional argument in order to avoid compiling odr-dabmod with the option "-march=native". Since the odr-dabmod package was not moved to the NEW queue yet, can I just reload the package with the updated debian/rules file or do I also need to modify file debian/changelog indicating the change on debian/rules? In the latter case, do I need to change the package version (ie. moving to 2.6.0-2 from 2.6.0-1)? Have a nice week. -- Robin Le vendredi 29 avril 2022 à 11:14 +0200, Bastian Germann a écrit : > Am 29.04.22 um 11:07 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: > > As I wrote to you, I: > > 1. Uploaded on Wednesday (April 27) the corrected versions of > > odr- > > dabmux (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmux/) and odr- > > dabmod > > (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmod/) > > > > 2. Removed the moreinfo tag on odr-dabmux > > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009867) and > > odr- > > dabmod (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010004) > > > > Assuming I did everything correctly, is there anything else I must > > do > > to have these 2 packages pushed to the NEW queue (like what was > > done > > with odr-padenc)? Or is it the sponsor/you who pushes the packages > > to > > the NEW queue by closing the above 2 bugs (1009867 and 1010004) ? > > You just have to wait until someone will review the packages. > My comments were just to help getting the packages to a state where a > DD would have a look at it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Am 29.04.22 um 11:07 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: As I wrote to you, I: 1. Uploaded on Wednesday (April 27) the corrected versions of odr- dabmux (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmux/) and odr-dabmod (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmod/) 2. Removed the moreinfo tag on odr-dabmux (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009867) and odr- dabmod (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010004) Assuming I did everything correctly, is there anything else I must do to have these 2 packages pushed to the NEW queue (like what was done with odr-padenc)? Or is it the sponsor/you who pushes the packages to the NEW queue by closing the above 2 bugs (1009867 and 1010004) ? You just have to wait until someone will review the packages. My comments were just to help getting the packages to a state where a DD would have a look at it.
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Hi Bastian, Thank you for your answer: it is crystal clear! As I wrote to you, I: 1. Uploaded on Wednesday (April 27) the corrected versions of odr- dabmux (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmux/) and odr-dabmod (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmod/) 2. Removed the moreinfo tag on odr-dabmux (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009867) and odr- dabmod (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010004) Assuming I did everything correctly, is there anything else I must do to have these 2 packages pushed to the NEW queue (like what was done with odr-padenc)? Or is it the sponsor/you who pushes the packages to the NEW queue by closing the above 2 bugs (1009867 and 1010004) ? Kind regards. -- Robin ALEXANDER Le mercredi 27 avril 2022 à 14:41 +0200, Bastian Germann a écrit : > Am 27.04.22 um 14:13 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: > > I now have 1 question. When I built these packages, debuild > > generated > > the xxx_amd64.changes files. Why do I have "amd64" in the filename > > (I > > understand it relates to the X86_64 architecture)? > > For your information, the source is mainly C++ based and it > > compiles > > properly under arm64 and arm/v7 as well. Should I have ran debuild > > in a > > different manner or is it going to be taken care of by the debian > > packaging process later on? > > You caompiled the package on a x86_64 PC, so that behaviour and your > use of debuild is okay. > When you set "Architecture: any" on a binary package, the buildd > network will try to compile the package on every > Debian-supported architecture and kernel, which includes armel, > armhf, and arm64. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Am 27.04.22 um 14:13 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: I now have 1 question. When I built these packages, debuild generated the xxx_amd64.changes files. Why do I have "amd64" in the filename (I understand it relates to the X86_64 architecture)? For your information, the source is mainly C++ based and it compiles properly under arm64 and arm/v7 as well. Should I have ran debuild in a different manner or is it going to be taken care of by the debian packaging process later on? You caompiled the package on a x86_64 PC, so that behaviour and your use of debuild is okay. When you set "Architecture: any" on a binary package, the buildd network will try to compile the package on every Debian-supported architecture and kernel, which includes armel, armhf, and arm64.
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Hi Bastian, thank you very much. I followed your instructions and uploaded again both odr-dabmod (Bug#1010004) and odr-dabmux (Bug#1009867). I also removed the tag "moreinfo" on both bugs (hoping I did it right). I now have 1 question. When I built these packages, debuild generated the xxx_amd64.changes files. Why do I have "amd64" in the filename (I understand it relates to the X86_64 architecture)? For your information, the source is mainly C++ based and it compiles properly under arm64 and arm/v7 as well. Should I have ran debuild in a different manner or is it going to be taken care of by the debian packaging process later on? Kind regards. -- Robin ALEXANDER Le mercredi 27 avril 2022 à 00:58 +0200, Bastian Germann a écrit : > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:20:06 +0200 Robin ALEXANDER > wrote: > > Changes for the initial release: > > > > odr-dabmod (2.6.0-1) unstable; urgency=low > > . > > * Initial release. Closes: #1007104 > > Please fix the lintian error (JS minified, source missing) by having > the unminified source in debian/missing-sources. > When you have uploaded a new revision (not changing the changelog), > untag moreinfo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:20:06 +0200 Robin ALEXANDER wrote: Changes for the initial release: odr-dabmod (2.6.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release. Closes: #1007104 Please fix the lintian error (JS minified, source missing) by having the unminified source in debian/missing-sources. When you have uploaded a new revision (not changing the changelog), untag moreinfo.
Bug#1010004: RFS: odr-dabmod/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "odr-dabmod": * Package name : odr-dabmod Version : 2.6.0-1 Upstream Author : Matthias P. Braendli * URL : https://www.opendigitalradio.org/mmbtools * License : FSFAP, GPL-2+ with Autoconf-data exception, GPL- 3.0+ with autoconf exception, GPL-3.0+, Apache-2.0, BSD-3-Clause, EXPAT, LGPL-3, GPL-2.0+, Expat * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/ralex/odr-dabmod Section : hamradio The source builds the following binary packages: odr-dabmod - DAB modulator compliant to ETSI EN 300 401 To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmod/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odr-dabmod/odr-dabmod_2.6.0-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: odr-dabmod (2.6.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release. Closes: #1007104 Regards, -- Robin ALEXANDER signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
