Bug#925505: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#925505: RFS: dhcpoptinj/0.4.4-1 [ITP])

2019-04-16 Thread Adam Borowski
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:38:40AM +, Andreas Misje wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why did you upload one of the older revisions
> uploaded to https://mentors.debian.net/package/dhcpoptinj and not the
> newest, in which I have fixed a few issues, like outdated standards
> version and debian-compat, and updated the VCS URIs?

I had grabbed the package earlier, and did not suspect there might be
updates since the last post.

> If you are considering uploading another version, would you mind if I
> package 0.5.0 first?

While I'm obviously willing to upload new versions in the future, it's
usually harmful to have multiple versions in NEW -- the ftpmasters would
have to review them all, and failure in just one means rejection of
everything.

Thus, I'd recommend waiting for 0.4.4-1 to get ACCEPTed or REJECTed, and
only then updating it.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄



Bug#925505: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#925505: RFS: dhcpoptinj/0.4.4-1 [ITP])

2019-04-16 Thread Andreas Misje
> I have not tested the functionality, but the packaging seems sound.
>
> In NEW.

Thanks a lot for having a look!

Out of curiosity, why did you upload one of the older revisions
uploaded to https://mentors.debian.net/package/dhcpoptinj and not the
newest, in which I have fixed a few issues, like outdated standards
version and debian-compat, and updated the VCS URIs?

If you are considering uploading another version, would you mind if I
package 0.5.0 first? Thanks again for taking the time to help me.


Best regards,
-- 
Andreas Misje