Hi Adam, thanks for looking into it:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > --- whohas-0.29/debian/patches/10-debian-versions 2012-01-15 > 18:21:29.000000000 +0000 > +++ whohas-0.29/debian/patches/10-debian-versions 2012-09-27 > 14:12:02.000000000 +0000 > @@ -1,16 +1,26 @@ > +From: Yaroslav Halchenko <deb...@onerussian.com> > +Subject: Fetch all versions from the same page for Debian > + > +Similarly to Ubuntu's logic supplied in the previous patch -- fetch all > version > Referring simply to "the previous patch" seems somewhat odd here - would this change be sufficient? -Similarly to Ubuntu's logic supplied in the previous patch -- fetch all version +Similarly to Ubuntu's logic supplied in 06-ubuntu-versions patch -- fetch all version > there's no guarantee the patch in question will even be in the package > at any future point, yet alone be the "previous" patch. IIRC if 06-ubuntu-versions gets dropped, 'all' logic would not be implemented, thus 10-debian-versions would get broken. Therefore I am not expecting 10-debian-versions to exist without 06-ubuntu-versions (it is also unlikely for upstream to adopt one without another). > The meta-data is also now wrong: > ## Description: Add unstable and experimental Debian repositories. > ## Origin/Author: Jonathan Wiltshire <deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk> > ## Bug: https://bugs.debian.org/511364 indeed -- removed > Unblocked, but I wouldn't be entirely averse to an update fixing the > headers. if above change is ok with you (if not -- feel free to elaborate or provide your wording) -- I could upload adjusted -0.3 to sid -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
