Benoît Knecht wrote:
I'll try and have a look at the rest of the package later today.
Here's my long overdue review of rsbep:
- The long description of the package repeats the synopsis; take a
look at [1] for the best practices.
[1]
Dear Benoît,
I'm applauding to your extensive review and attention to details.
Thank you.
I don't know if I should have ever brought something so non-perfect to your
pedantic attention. :)
I just want to remind that I never intended to make the perfect package out of
it. I merely fix some
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Interesting,
I was able to reproduce the problem when I downloaded my own package and
run 'debian/rules clean'
this puzzled me for an hour but then I found the problem.
Somehow a broken source package has been uploaded - it did not applied
patches I wrote to fix
Benoît Knecht wrote:
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Interesting,
I was able to reproduce the problem when I downloaded my own package and
run 'debian/rules clean'
this puzzled me for an hour but then I found the problem.
Somehow a broken source package has been uploaded - it did not
Hi Benoît,
Okay, it was actually my fault all along; after importing the dsc file
with git-import-dsc, I should have run 'gbp-pq import' to import the
patches in a git branch, and then build that branch.
Thank you, I think this work-flow issues are quite interesting to understand.
Certainly
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
I see... Well, the proper solution would be to separate both packages;
right now, the .orig.tar.bz2 file is not at all an upstream archive
(it's not even the concatenation of both upstream archives), so of
course it makes it impossible to comply with the policy.
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
I see... Well, the proper solution would be to separate both packages;
right now, the .orig.tar.bz2 file is not at all an upstream archive
(it's not even the concatenation of both upstream archives), so of
course it makes it impossible to comply with the policy.
Dear Benoît,
Thank you for a fantastic review.
I addressed most issues and re-uploaded the package.
For a moment I put on hold reformatting debian/copyright and changing
package version number.
Updated package available from on same URL as before.
This is very strange. Practically can't be.
I'm unable to reproduce it.
I'm building in 3 different pbuilder environments
[sid_amd64,stable_amd64,stable_i386]
and on two physical machines amd64 and i386.
It's all good for me.
I even re-downloaded it and it is good.
What's going on? Could you try
onlyjob wrote:
This is very strange. Practically can't be.
I'm unable to reproduce it.
I'm building in 3 different pbuilder environments
[sid_amd64,stable_amd64,stable_i386]
and on two physical machines amd64 and i386.
It's all good for me.
I even re-downloaded it and it is good.
Interesting,
I was able to reproduce the problem when I downloaded my own package and
run 'debian/rules clean'
this puzzled me for an hour but then I found the problem.
Somehow a broken source package has been uploaded - it did not applied
patches I wrote to fix broke upstream makefiles.
My
Dmitry Smirnov only...@member.fsf.org wrote on 2011-11-26 16:23:
I don't know how to regenerate man pages.
If you have the original manpage, e.g. dvbackup.1 then open it with an
editor and search for the string and change it. For the seen warnings
hyphen-used-as-minus-sign:
- change to \-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Joachim,
On 26.11.2011 14:02, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
Dmitry Smirnov only...@member.fsf.org wrote on 2011-11-26 16:23:
I don't know how to regenerate man pages.
If you have the original manpage, e.g. dvbackup.1 then open it with an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I updated
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvbackup/dvbackup_0.0.4rj1-7.dsc
with sort of elegant solution for regeneration of man pages.
I added 'clean' target to debian/rules, which wipes *.1 pages so
docbook-to-man regenerates them.
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
I updated
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvbackup/dvbackup_0.0.4rj1-7.dsc
with sort of elegant solution for regeneration of man pages.
I added 'clean' target to debian/rules, which wipes *.1 pages so
docbook-to-man regenerates them.
Thank you, well spotted.
On 27/11/11 00:53, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Your debian/control file is invalid (see debian policy 5.6.23 [1]), and
you left over some text at the end of the description.
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Homepage
I removed
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Thank you, well spotted.
On 27/11/11 00:53, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Your debian/control file is invalid (see debian policy 5.6.23 [1]), and
you left over some text at the end of the description.
[1]
I see... Well, the proper solution would be to separate both packages;
right now, the .orig.tar.bz2 file is not at all an upstream archive
(it's not even the concatenation of both upstream archives), so of
course it makes it impossible to comply with the policy.
Yes, orig.tar is such a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey Dmitry,
On 26.11.2011 01:39, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Dear Mentors,
dvbackup is orphaned (#573466) and outdated for a while.
I prepared NMU with some improvements (below) so I hope it can be uploaded.
please provide a link to your dsc file. We
Hi Arno,
I can't believe I forgot to include a link to package :(
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvbackup/dvbackup_0.0.4rj1-6.2.dsc
Thank you very much for your advice.
Cheers,
Dmitry.
On 26 November 2011 11:47, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Dmitry,
here is a quick (and incomplete) review:
* For both, QA and NMUs it is helpful to provide a diff of all changes.
You can use the debdiff tool, or provide a diff of the respective debian
directories at least outlining all your changes.
Hi Arno,
Thank you for extensive review and useful advices.
As I just learned, quick maintainer change to QA invalidates NMU version
number hence lintian warnings.
I fixed that and re-uploaded source package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvbackup/dvbackup_0.0.4rj1-7.dsc
22 matches
Mail list logo
