rc bug #230677 for package phpdoc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, What can be done for bug #230677? It was a year since an NMU was done (march 2004). The problem is fixed. But since it was fixed by the NMU, it's still open as RC bug, and the package won't go to sarge. I think the bug should be closed. What do you think? Please CC me, I'm not listed. - -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcAEUFViURZnoHaARAnPeAKCII751zROLnGmSddIv7oa8gWjKHwCguL7c ZO2Hmusi10KFRfu1wp1DJHg= =svct -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New uploads to fix RC bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Through Shaul Karl, my sponsor, I did uploads of tea & phpdoc packages to close RC bug reports: #303352 & #28227. Please check them and accept the packages to sarge. Thanks. - -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCf8ANFViURZnoHaARArvtAJ9Nt3aKt6rydTEFEwa3BvpO65yskQCfeTKE GH4o4NssZPFnGKg3KZkwckM= =dNgd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New uploads to fix RC bugs
Thanks for the comments, I'll fix them and upload a new version. > Third and last remark, since this is a documentation package, why > didn't you upgrade this to the latest version? That'd seem really > useful to me. So close to sarge release, I don't want to upload a new upstream version. I prefer to fix the known bugs and not risk with inserting new ones. Since I already have a new version ready, I don't care to upload it to sid or experimental for checks before sarge. What do you think? Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:54:54PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote: > >> Through Shaul Karl, my sponsor, I did uploads of tea & phpdoc >> packages to close RC bug reports: #303352 & #28227. > > > I just reviewed phpdoc (although I'm not a release-manager or > -assistent, and have a few remarks: > > | --- phpdoc-20030911/Makefile.in | +++ > phpdoc-20030911.orig/Makefile.in | @@ -307,7 +307,5 @@ | | > distclean: clean | for file in `find . -name "*.in"`; do rm > `dirname $$file`/`basename $$file .in`; done | - rm -f > config.status config.cache | - find . -name functions.xml > -print0 | xargs -0 rm -f | | # }}} > > This inflates the diff by a great deal, you're now shipping tons of > autogenerated functions.xml files. Also this change is not listed in > the changelog. > > | --- phpdoc-20030911/debian/rules | +++ phpdoc-20030911/debian/rules > | @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ | configure-stamp: | dh_testdir | > # Add here commands to configure the package. | + autoconf | > ./configure --with-lang=en | | touch configure-stamp > > But you don't build-depend on autoconf, this is not going to work. > And indeed, pbuilder says: > > | make: autoconf: Command not found | make: *** [configure-stamp] > Error 127 | pbuilder: Failed autobuilding of package > > Third and last remark, since this is a documentation package, why > didn't you upgrade this to the latest version? That'd seem really > useful to me. > > Since the package is orphaned and now ITA'd by you, you should > probably also set the Maintainer: address properly to yourself, > thereby formally adopting the package (I assume that this didn't > happen because the package sat with your sponsor before it was indeed > orphaned, so this is of course nobody's fault really). > > --Jeroen > -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phpdoc & sarge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, While doing a new version for phpdoc, I found out that upstream change the license to OPL on Tue Jun 10 03:43:48 2003 (info from http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/LICENSE). According to http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-005-opl OPL isn't DFSG compatible and should go to non-free. I can do a package that will have files before the license switch, one that cab be included in sarge. Do you think its needed? Or I'm wasting my time. The other option is to remove phpdoc from sarge. - -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCg3SuFViURZnoHaARAlWFAKC7Trb/80EH3MGNB3c4SYQ9SUdoOACgmWB8 NLX1s3LxGln3V8n6rgWH9ks= =BWq2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any news on bug #255367: missing pptp-linux from first CD ?
Hi, I'm querying about this bug since it prevents users of some countries to have Internet access using the netinstall. The report lists: Austria, Italy & Israel. More info at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=255367 popcon stats : http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=pptp-linux -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: phpdoc & sarge
Done. The version (20050512-1) is in sid. Fixing http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=282274 & a license problem. Consider to include in Sarge (when the 10 days period is over). Thanks. Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:22:22PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote: > >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>Hi, >> >>While doing a new version for phpdoc, I found out that upstream change >>the license to OPL on Tue Jun 10 03:43:48 2003 (info from >>http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/LICENSE). >> >>According to http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-005-opl OPL isn't >>DFSG compatible and should go to non-free. >> >>I can do a package that will have files before the license switch, one >>that cab be included in sarge. >> >>Do you think its needed? Or I'm wasting my time. The other option is to >>remove phpdoc from sarge. > > > I'd say upload it to non-free then. > > --Jeroen > -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tea package in sarge (after RC bug fix)
Hi, I uploaded tea 9.0-1 to fix RC bug #303352. In the PTS I have: "8 days old (needed 2 days)". Please consider for Sarge. Thanks, -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
