Bug#712622: pu: package wv2/0.4.2.dfsg.1-9.1

2013-07-13 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + pending On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 18:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 02:36 +0100, Olly Betts wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack? I'm open to guidance as

Bug#712622: pu: package wv2/0.4.2.dfsg.1-9.1

2013-06-22 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags 712622 + confirmed - moreinfo Control: tags 712623 + confirmed - moreinfo On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 02:36 +0100, Olly Betts wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack? I'm open to guidance as to

Bug#712622: pu: package wv2/0.4.2.dfsg.1-9.1

2013-06-19 Thread Olly Betts
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack? I'm open to guidance as to what's best. The repacked upstream tarball would be the same as testing/unstable has, so perhaps 0.4.2.dfsg.2-1~deb7+1 (and 0.4.2.dfsg.2-1~deb6+1

Bug#712622: pu: package wv2/0.4.2.dfsg.1-9.1

2013-06-18 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 + wheezy moreinfo On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 11:23 +1200, Olly Betts wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: serious Nope. It's an RC bug in wv2, the request to update that package is normal at most. README.Debian says that

Bug#712622: pu: package wv2/0.4.2.dfsg.1-9.1

2013-06-17 Thread Olly Betts
Package: release.debian.org Severity: serious User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu README.Debian says that src/generator/generator_wword{6,8}.htm have been removed from the repacked wv2_0.4.2.dfsg.1.orig.tar.bz2, but they are still present. These two files are based on