Bug#683500: RFS: freefoam/0.1.0+dfsg-1 [RC]

2012-08-02 Thread Michael Wild 
Hi Bart

On 08/02/2012 07:35 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
 Hi Michael,
 
 About your package freefoam at mentors uploaded there on 2012-08-01 08:37.
 If nobody increases the bug severities to at least important then I suggest
 that you reduce the changes to what is likely acceptable for an unblock.

I.e. remove all changes that don't fix at least an important bug? How
long should I wait for eventual severity changes?

 Anyhow, my first impression is that you are doing good work on freefoam.

Thanks a lot

Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#683500: RFS: freefoam/0.1.0+dfsg-1

2012-08-01 Thread Michael Wild 
On 08/01/2012 07:00 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:15:18PM +0200, Michael Wild wrote:
 Some of the bugs are fixed in the upload at m.d.n are not RC, but still
 pretty annoying. To get a freeze-exception, would I need to remove those
 changes?
 
 What are the bug severities of these pretty annoying bugs ?

I mostly estimated them as normal or minor, but I'm not really
experienced classifying bugs, so you or other reviewers could come to a
different conclusion. That's why I asked for a review of these bugs.
Specifically, these are:

#682931: The freefoam-log utility fails on truncated logs
#682932: The freefoam-log utility writes to $PWD/logs/ instead of
 case/logs/
#682934: The -doc and -srcDoc options fail to find the Doxygen docs
#683175: Template files /usr/share/freefoam/data/templates/* should be
 in /usr/share/freefoam/templates
#683176: The /usr/share/freefoam/data/foamLog.db is in the wrong place
 and package
#683369: The API documentation is unusable

 
 Also, would this upload to to unstable, or to testing directly?
 
 I suggest to go via unstable, because this is possible for this package.
 Please mark RFS 682893 as blocked by RFS 683500 to keep unstable available.

Will do, thanks.

 
 Lastly, what is the appropriate revision number? I chose to stick with 1
 since I added the +dfsg suffix, but I'm not sure this  is appropriate
 since it is also the second revision based on the 0.1.0 upstream version.
 
 Your choice 0.1.0+dfsg-1 is good.

Thanks.

 
 Regards,
 
 Bart Martens
 

Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#683500: RFS: freefoam/0.1.0+dfsg-1 [RC]

2012-08-01 Thread Bart Martens 
Hi Michael,

About your package freefoam at mentors uploaded there on 2012-08-01 08:37.
If nobody increases the bug severities to at least important then I suggest
that you reduce the changes to what is likely acceptable for an unblock.
Anyhow, my first impression is that you are doing good work on freefoam.

Regards,

Bart Martens


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org